4 . a —) iy 4 
he kta iy 


; BW! 


ae 


.) * 
® 

: ¥ 
Vi 

y ed 
. 
; 


j ¥ 
) = i "Aes } 
a4 A 
hut t 
he 
f Ae 


NS 


| 
, : 
H iy 


¥ f 
¢ : 
s te fi ; a 
pe y 
. a : 
5) } j 
NP") ‘ 


eo 


5 Pst - 
ve. . n 
Ni he te 
Ye - z 
Tae A “ 
, k LP 
id \" 
s 4% 
‘ Wie 
- 
ae 
2 Cc 
“ : - 
’ 
ar 
, 
* 
On ‘ , 
ADF, 
fas. Fis f hy 
45, A - ae 
we, an t 
ats .) vi ‘ i % 
A The 
= = 


CV Mase (o 2, 
xs ates i 
ee Pe 


EONS On OL re Ph 


Secular. 


‘The book is a distinctly readable one.’—Glasgow Herald, Sep- 
tember 18, 1902. 

‘Really excellent little work.’—Daily News, September 26, 1902. 

‘We cannot commend it too highly.’—Western Morning News, 
January 2, 1903. 

‘Carefully thought-out little work . . . written with frank and 
tolerant impartiality.’—Standard, May 26, 1905. 

‘The arguments are admirably marshalled ; difficulties are not 
evaded, but met fairly. —Westminster Review, August, 1905. 

‘We welcome a new edition. ... The appeal of the book is 
evidently one to common sense, and the success it has met is fully 
deserved. There is a healthy lay atmosphere about Colonel Turton’s 
arguments which renders them, we fancy, peculiarly effective.’— 
Pall Mall Gazette, March 11, 1907. 

‘Tt is difficult to know whether to admire most the logical pre- 

cision with which he marshals his facts, and enforces his conclusions, 
or the charming candour, and freshness of style, which make his 
book so readable.”’—Liverpool Daily Post, March 14, 1907. 
- © This is a new edition, thoroughly revised, of Lieutenant-Colonel 
Turton’s famous book. ... We are specially struck with the de- 
tached manner in which he examines the case ; he holds the scales 
evenly, and is not rhetorical. Anyone who has any power of reason- 
ing at all can follow him clearly from start to finish.’—Bristol Times 
and Mirror, February 18, 1907. 


Church of England. 


‘The book is of considerable value to everyone who is concerned 
with the controversy on Christian Evidences ; it presents a perfect 
storehouse of facts and the conclusions which may be legitimately 
drawn from them.’—Church Times, November 2, 1900. 


OPINIONS OF THE PRESS —continued. 


‘We have already expressed our high opinion of this work—the 
author of which, it may be mentioned, is serving in South Africa.’— 
Guardian, October 17, 1900. 


‘This thoughtful and convincing treatise. ... We are glad to 
be able to give our good word for the book, which should be found in 
the catalogue of every public library in the kingdom. It is a 
volume admirably suitable for a gift-book to young men. It furnishes 
an armoury of invincible weapons against the scepticism and semi- 
scepticism which are rampant among us.’—English Churchman, 
November 1, 1900. 


‘This very excellent volume. ... We strongly recommend this 
book to the clergy for their own use and for lending to thoughtful 
and painstaking readers.’—Church Union Gazette, January, 1901. 


‘It is one of the best books of its class, readable, candid, convinc- 
ing, and thorough. It would be cheering news to hear that it had 
been widely read. The book will continue to make its way ; and 
all Christians will rejoice that it should do so.’—Church Intelligencer, 
October, 1905. 

‘We know of no book which we should lend with more hope of 
advantage to a person who, without professional training in theology 
or philosophy, is perplexed by the common arguments against the 
Christian religion, and fears that the verdict of reason is against it.’ 
—Church Quarterly, July, 1903. (Subsequent reviews have not been 
so favourable.) 


‘ There is no padding, and no unnecessary rhetoric. All the avail- 
able space is filled with good solid reasoning, put in simple language 
which an intelligent artisan can follow as easily as an educated 
person.’—Church Family Newspaper, October 3, 1902. 


‘The chief characteristics of this most excellent handbook are, 
first, its combination of lucidity and simplicity with scholarliness and 
accuracy of thought ; and then the remarkable freshness of presen- 
tation which is given to those arguments which have already brought 
intellectual conviction to thousands. It is well adapted to be the 
standard compendium of Christian Evidences for the busy man. 

The brilliancy of the author does not consist in his rhetoric 
or appeal, but in the really brilliant fairness which he displays 
towards the other side, in the accuracy with which he analyses each 
situation, and in the clear and simple arguments which he adduces.’ 
—Church Standard, January, 1906, 


‘This is the kind of book which strengthens believers and makes 
converts. Itis one which should be placed within the reach of every 
lad at that period of his life when he begins to think for himself.’ 
Lhe (Church Lads) Brigade, October, 1905. 


x 


OPINIONS OF THE PRESS—continued. 


Roman Catholic. 


‘We very favourably reviewed Mayor Turton’s book on its 
first appearance, and we are not at all astonished that it has reached 
_ its third edition. As we wrote then we write now: ‘We are not 
~ aware of a similar publication by a Catholic writer so clear or so well 
adapted to impress the mind with the drift and bearing of those 
questions which it now behoves every priest to understand, if 
modern minds are to be influenced towards Christianity.”” We con- 
gratulate the learned author on the well-merited success his book 
has met with.’—Catholic Times, November 16, 1900. 

“This excellent book, . . . well written, attractive in its style, 
clearly thought out, and convincing.’—Tablet, August 29, 1903. 

‘This is a work of uncommon merit... . The style is clear and 
makes for pleasant reading. We wish many of our Catholic young 
men would try and analyse a chapter in CoLONEL TurTON’s helpful 
defence of Christianity.’ Universe, July 21, 1905. 

‘A capital book already much used by priests in this country, 
and to be found upon the shelves of very many of our clerical 
libraries. But we wish that the Catholic paterfamilias would pro- 
cure it too, and recommend it to his boys. . . . There is a mascu- 
line ring about it, and no shuffling over difficulties.’—Catholic Fire- 
side, March 23, 1907. 


Presbyterian. 


‘One does not know what2to admire most in the book—the 
accurate knowledge gathered from so many fields, the clear reason- 
ing, the sound judgment, or the fine spirit which animates the whole.’ 
—Christian Leader, June 15, 1905. 

‘Admirably arranged and clearly expressed..—Weekly Leader, 
October 6, 1902. 

‘One of the best books of its kind.’—St. Andrew, June 1, 1905. 

“This is an admirable summary. It is clear, simple, and well 
arranged. ... The style also makes it extremely readable.’— 
Presbyterian, March, 1906. 


Nonconformist. 


“He is eminently fair to opponents, clear in statement, and 
convincing in argument for his own case, and his standpoint is 
unmistakably evangelical. His style suits his work, being calm, 
lucid, and simple.’— Methodist Times, August 22, 1901. 


OPINIONS OF THE PRESS—continued. 


‘Is a tried favourite, and has served the Kingdom in many lands. 
There is no book of the class known to us so complete and conclu- 
sive.’—Methodist Recorder, February 28, 1907. 

‘A former review in the Baptist highly commended it as a clear, 
concise setting forth of a strong argument for Christianity. This 
is even more true to-day, as it has been carefully revised, and many 
chapters rewritten and greatly strengthened.’”—Baptist, April 11, 
1907. 

“On the whole, it is the best popular summary that we have met, 
It excels in definiteness of purpose, in clearness of statement, in 
moderation, and in conciseness.’——Baptist Times, October 24, 1902. 


“This excellent compendium. ... Every point is plainly put, 
and the fact that the argument is not hidden by the use of un- 
familiar and technical terms makes it peculiarly adapted for general 
_ reading. In these days of doubt we cordially commend it.’— 
Westminster Record, April, 1907. 

‘The author’s line of argument is irresistible in its rugged force. 
3s A fascinating book.’ Social Gazette (Salvation Army), 
April 27, 1907. 


Agnostic. 


“Again, as in 1902, we commend LIEUTENANT-COLONEL TUR- 
TON’s book as a handy epitome of nearly all conceivable arguments 
in support of Christianity. The twenty-four chapters champion 
twenty-four propositions, and the whole thing is worked out as 
systematically as a problem in a successful student’s honours paper. 

However, it is of no avail to argue such points with our well- 
meaning and unimaginative Lieutenant-Colonel ; and we will merely 
remark that he is quite a gentleman, and uses no disdainful language 
towards the poor Agnostic.’—Litevary Guide and Rationalistic 
Review, March, 1907. 

‘This remarkable volume contains over 500 pages, with scarcely 
a dull one among them. The author’s easy flow of unlaboured 
thought, his facility of expression, and his fine gift of exposition, 
carry the reader on in spite of himself. . . . Differ as we may from 
much that is in the gallant Colonel’s volume, we gladly pay him the 
respect due to frankness, cleverness, and transparency of mind 
and motive, and thank him for putting his own side of a great subject 
so simply and interestingly, and without prejudice or bitterness.’— 
New Age, August 3, 1905. 


7 


THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY 


og Re 
a pt 7 
Ki ee A 
© ._s — ¥ 
43 
- 


iWeus 


PRUE OF CHRISTIANITY 


BEING AN 


Eramination of the More FJmportant Arguments 
For and Against Believing in that Religion 


COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BY 


PeaCoree Wout) Leh i GN, cDis,G. 


LATE ROYAL ENGINEERS 


SEVENTH EDITION TWENTIETH THOUSAND 
(Carefully revised throughout) 


NE Wav Onrk 


GP: PUTNAM’S SONS 
27 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET 
IQIO 


CONTENTS. 


PAR EAI, 
NATURAL RELIGION. 

CHAPTER é PAGE 
I. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR . ° . 3 
een AT. THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE , : ET 

Ill. THAT THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY 
PROBABLE : : ; : . Sa a 
IV. THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING F 44 
Vv. THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN’S WELFARE : 69 

VI. THAT THEREFORE GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION 
TO MAN ; soap  ee : & g 

ip tee en BAe THEREFORE A MIRACULOUS REVELATION Is 
CREDIBLE e ° a ° ° F EDS 

PART IT. 
THE JEWISH RELIGION. 

Vill. THAT ITS ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY 
REVEALED ~ i - F P a Re 
IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES . - 59 
X. THAT -ITS HISTORY WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES , 199 
XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO ATTESTED BY PROPHECIES . 2178 

XII, THAT THEREFORE THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY 


TRUE ; : : ‘ : ; Sees 
Vii 


vill CONTENTS. 


PART rT. 
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 

CHAPTER PAGE 
XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE . - [255 
XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM EX- 

TERNAL TESTIMONY . ; : : . 4295 
XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM INTERNAL / 
EVIDENCE > : ; j : . \320 
XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM THE EVIDENCE | 
OF THE ACTS . ‘ . ; : os 348 
XVII. THAT THEREFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS 
PROBABLY TRUE : ; fies ; x OF 
XVIII. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE 
PROBABLY TRUE : : : : ret | 


XIX. THAT THE JEWISH. PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH 


OF CHRISTIANITY - : \ : 7 tAas 

XX. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH 
OF CHRISTIANITY : ; ; , ard ae 

XXI. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONFIRMS 
ITS TRUTH : : , : : -AQ8 

XXII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS 
THIS CONCLUSION : : ; ; SES 

XXIII. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE 
NEW TESTAMENT ‘ , ; : oe oe 

XXIV. THAT THEREFORE THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RE- 
LIGION 1S EXTREMELY PROBABLE : : Pay 2 
INDEX OF TEXTS ; ; : ; - 584 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS : 3 , : sats 


VII. 


Ld Ad Et 


NATURAL RELIGION. 


THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR, 

THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE. 

THAT THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY 
PROBABLE. 

THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING. 

THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN’S WELFARE. 

THAT THEREFORE GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO 
MAN. 

THAT THEREFORE A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE, 


CHAPTER I. 
THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR. 


(A.) THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. 
Explanation of the universe, its origin, and a Free Force. 


(1.) The Philosophical Argument. If the universe had 
not an origin, it seems to necessitate that all events 
form a recurring series ; and this is incredible. 

(2.) The Scientific Argument. From the process of evolu- 
tion and the dissipation of energy. 


(B.) THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. 
The Single Supernatural Cause, which originated it. 


It is proposed in this Essay to consider the reasons 
for and against believing in the truth of Christianity, 
meaning by that term, as will be explained later on 
(Chapter XIII.), the doctrines contained in the Three 
Creeds. For convenience the subject has been divided 
into three Parts and twenty-four Chapters; though 
Part II., on the Jewish Religion, may be omitted by 
anyone not specially interested in that subject. At 
present we are considering Natural Religion only, which 
deals with the great questions of the Existence of God, 
and the probability of His making some Revelation to 
man. And we will commence at the very beginning. 

(A.) THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. 

Now by the universe is meant the material universe, 

3 I—2 


4 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. I. 


which includes everything that exists (earth, sun, stars, 
and all they contain), with the exception of immaterial 
or spiritual beings, if there are any such. And by 
this universe having had an origin is meant that it 
was at some time acted on by a Free Force, that is 
to say, by a force which does not always act the same 
under the same circumstances, but which is able to 
act or not as it pleases. Of course such a force would 
be totally different from all the known forces of 
nature; but there is no difficulty in understanding 
what is meant by the term, since man himself seems 
to possess such a force in his own free will. We are 
not assuming that man’s will is really free, but merely 
that the idea of a free force, able to act or not as it 
pleases, is well known to man and generally under- 
stood. 

Hence the statement that the universe had an 
origin means that at some time or other it was acted 
on by such a Free Force; in other words, it has not 
existed eternally under the fixed and invariable forces 
of nature, and without any external interference. And 
we have now to consider the two arguments in favour 
of this, which may be‘conveniently called the Philo- 
sophical and the Scientific argument. 

(x.) The Philosophical Argument. 

By this is meant that, when we reflect on the subject, 
it seems inevitable that if the universe had not an 
origin, all present events must form part of a recurring 
series. The reason for thinking this is, that if all free 
force is excluded, it is plain that matter must be 
eternal, since its coming into existence at any time 


_ CREATION. 5 


could not have been a necessity, and must therefore 
have been due to some free force. And it is equally 
plain that what we call the forces of nature and the 
properties of matter must also be eternal, since any 
alteration in them at any time would also have 
required a free force. And from this it follows that no 
new event can happen now. For every event which 
the forces of nature could possibly bring about of 
themselves would, since they have been acting from 
eternity, have been brought about long ago. There- 
fore present’events are not new, but must have occurred 
before, and thus form part of a recurring series. 

This is no doubt a possible theory. For example, if 
we assume that the universe will in process of time 
work itself back into precisely the same condition in 
which it was long ago as a nebula or anything else, 
when it will recommence precisely the same changes 
as before, then, and only then, is it possible that it 
has been going on doing so from all eternity. But 
this theory, though possible, is certainly not credible. 
For it requires that all events, past, present, and 
future, have occurred, and will occur, an infinite 
number of times. And when applied to a single 
example, say the history of the human race, this is 
seen to be quite incredible. 

We are hence driven to the other alternative, which 
is that the universe has not existed eternally under 
the fixed forces of nature, and without any external 
interference ; in other words, that it had an origin. 
No doubt there are difficulties in regard to this theory 
also, but they do not seem to be nearly so great as 


6 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. I. 


those in regard to the previous one, and are mostly 
due to our ignorance. We may not know, for instance, 
whether matter itself is eternal, or whether it began 
to exist in. some manner inconceivable to us at the 
origin of the universe. Nor may we know how, on 
the former supposition, the free force acted, whether 
by causing matter to then assume its present properties, 
or by altering the conditions under which it was placed. 
Nor, again, may we have any idea as to why, if a free 
force once acted on the universe, it never apparently 
does so at present ; still less can we picture to ourselves _ 
what such a force would be like, though the difficulty 
here is no greater than that of picturing a force which 
is not free, say gravity. 

But our ignorance about all this is no reason for 
doubting what we do know. And it appears to the 
writer that we do know that, unless present events 
form a recurring series, which seems incredible, the 
universe cannot have existed eternally without some 
Free Force having acted on it at some time. In short, 
it seems less difficult to believe that the universe had 
an origin than to believe that it had not. 

(2.) The Scientific Argument. 

And this conclusion is greatly strengthened by two | 
scientific theories now generally accepted—that of 
the process of evolution and the dissipation of energy. 
The former seems to show that the universe had a 
beginning a certain number of years ago ; and the latter, 
that it will have an end a certain number of years 
hence. And either of these, if admitted, is sufficient 
to establish the point. 


CREATION, 7 


The first subject, that of Evolution, is discussed in 
the next chapter. All that need be said here is, that 
the atoms of the universe with their evolving pro- 
perties cannot have existed eternally without any 
interference ; for then the course of evolution would 
have commenced in the eternal past, and would 
therefore have been finished now. But this is cer- 
tainly not the case, and evolution is still in progress ; 
or at all events was so a few thousand years ago. 
And therefore, as a state of progress cannot be eternal, 
it must have had a commencement. And this com- 
mencement cannot have been a necessity, so it must 
have been due to a Free Force somewhere. In other 
words, evolution requires a previous Evolver; it 
cannot start itself. : 

The other theory, that of the Dissipation of Energy, 
is that the universe seems to be progressing towards a 
uniform temperature ; for all energy tends to heat, and 
heat tends to equal distribution. And when this has 
been reached, it will be in a condition from which it 
cannot change itself again. We need not go into the 
proots of this theory, as it is generally admitted, but 
will only point out that it is not in any way opposed 
to the other and equally well-established theory of the 
Conservation of Energy. For though the energy of the 
universe is conserved as to its total amount or quantity, 
it is yet dissipated or equalized as to what we may 
call its quality. The heat, for instance, which is now 
stored up in the sun will in process of time be dis- 
tributed throughout space, and the same applies to 
the whole universe. Now let this complete dissipa- 


oe THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. 1. 


tion of energy take any number of millions of years, 
they are yet nothing to eternity. And, therefore, if 
the universe with all its present forces existed from 
eternity, and without any external interference, it 
must have been reduced to this state long ago. So 
that if this theory is correct, it seems not only probable, 
but certain, that the universe had an origin. 

But an objection has now to be considered. It 
may. be said that the above reasoning is merely another 
form of the old argument, ‘‘ Everything must have a 
cause, and therefore there must have been a First 
Cause ;’’ the obvious answer to which is, that then the 
First Cause must also have had a cause, and so on 
indefinitely. But this is not the case; for the alleged 
First Cause is of a different kind from all the others. 
It is a Fvee Cause, whereas natural causes are not free, 
but are themselves effects of other natural causes ; 
and these, again, of previous ones. What we want is 
a cause which is not also an effect, in other words, a 
cause which is not moved by anything else, but is 
moved by itself, or Free... When once we get to 
such a cause as this, there is no need for a previous 
one. 

This objection, then, cannot be maintained, and 
we therefore decide that the universe had an origin. 
And all we know at present about the Force which 
originated it, is that it was a Free Force. And the 
conclusion at which we have arrived may be concisely 
expressed by saying, that before all natural causes 
which acted necessarily, there was a First Cause which 
acted voluntarily. 


CREATION. Q 


(B.) THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. 

We have next to consider what further we can ascer- 
tain in regard to this First Cause. To begin with 
it can scarcely be disputed at the present day that the 
First Cause was a Single Cause, as modern science has 
completely established the unity which pervades the 
universe. We know for instance that the same 
materials are used throughout, many of the elements 
which exist on this earth being also found in the sun 
and stars. Then there is the force of gravity, which 
is all-embracing, and applies equally to the most 
distant stars, and to the most minute objects on this 
earth ; and there is also the luminiferous ether, which 
forms a kind of atmosphere, extending throughout 
the universe. Many other examples might be given; 
but it is scarcely necessary, as everyone now admits 
that the universe (as the word implies) is one whole. 
And this plainly points to a Sengle First Cause. 

Nor can it be disputed that this First Cause was 
Supernatural, which merely means that it differs from 
all natural forces in being free ; for this is exactly what 
we have shown. It was thus no kind of gravitation, 
no molecular attraction, no chemical affinity. All 
these and all similar forces would always act the same 
under the same conditions ; whereas the Force we are 
considering was of precisely an opposite character. 
It was a Free Force, a Force which voluntarily chose 
to originate the universe at a certain time. And 
describing this Force as Supernatural is merely to 
emphasize this striking difference from all natural 
forces. 


IO THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. I. 


In conclusion we will call this Single Supernatural 
Cause which originated the universe its Creator, and 
hence the proposition at the head of this chapter 
follows at once. And if it be objected that the uni- 
verse may have had no origin, owing to some Free 
Force having been eternally acting on it, such a Force 
must also be Single and Supernatural, and therefore 
may equally well be called its Creator. 


CHAPTER IL. 
THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE. 


Design means originating combined with foreknowledge. 
(A.) EVIDENCE oF DESIGN. 


Seems overwhelming throughout organic nature ; and we 
are not appealing to it to show the Creator’s existence, 
but merely His foreknowledge. 


(1.) The example of a watch : its marks of design show that 
it had a maker who foresaw its use. 
(2.) The example of an eye: this also has marks of design, 
and must also have had a Designer. 
(3.) The evidence cumulative: other marks of design. 
(B.) THE EvoLuTION OBJECTION. 


(1.) The meaning of Evolution : it is a process, not a Cause. 
(2.) The effect of Evolution on the present argument: it 
increases the evidence for design. 


(C.) THe FREE WILL OBJECTION. 


(1.) Its great improbability : for several reasons. 

(2.) Free Will and Foreknowledge not incompatible ; so 
the chief argument in its favour cannot be main- 
tained. Conclusion. 


HAVING decided that the universe had a Creator, we 

have next to examine whether the Creator designed 

the universe. Now by Design is meant originating 

combined with foreknowledge ; so that any voluntary 

action, combined with foreknowledge of the results 

that will follow from such action, is to design those 
AWE 


IZ THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. Il. 


results. In the case before us, we have already shown 
that the Creator did originate the universe. The 
question, then, that remains to be discussed is whether, 
when so doing, He foreknew the consequences of His 
action. If He did, it is equivalent to His designing 
those consequences, as the word is here used. And 
these include, directly or indirectly, the present state 
of the universe. 

By the word foreknowing it is not meant that the 
Creator necessarily thought of all future events, how- 
ever insignificant, such as the position of the leaves on 
each tree ; but merely that He was able to foresee any 
of them He wished, and in this sense foreknew them. 
Compare the converse case of memory ; a man may be 
able to remember a thousand events in his life ; but 
they are not all before his mind’s eye at the same time, 
and the insignificant ones may never be. In the same 
way the Creator may have been able to foresee all 
future events in the world’s history without actually 
thinking about them. At all events, this is the kind 
of foresight, or rather foreknowledge, which is meant 
to be included in the term design. 

(A.) EVIDENCE oF DESIGN. 

Passing on now to the evidence of design, this is 
of the most varied kind, especially throughout organic 
nature, where we find countless objects, which seem 
to point to the foresight of the Cause which produced 
them. And it will be noticed that we are not appealing 
to these marks of design as showing the existence of 
the Creator, as is sometimes done, but merely His 
foreknowledge. His existence has been already estab- 


DESIGN. 13 


lished, and also the fact that the universe was originated 
by Him. All we are now investigating is whether, 
when He originated it, He foreknew its future course ; 
and the apparent evidence in favour of this is over- 
whelming. Everywhere in nature, from the highest 
forms to the lowest, we meet with apparent marks of 
design. The evidence is indeed so vast that it is 
difficult to deal with it satisfactorily. Perhaps the best 
way will be to follow the well-known watch argument 
of Paley, and first show by the example of a watch 
what it is that constitutes marks of design ; next, how 
a single organ, say the human eye, possesses these 
marks; and then, the cumulative nature of the 
evidence. 

(x.) The example of a watch. 

Now, when we examine a watch, we see that it 
bears marks of design, because the several parts are 
put together for a purpose. They are so formed and 
adjusted as to produce motion, and this motion is so 
regulated as to point out the hour of the day. While, 
if they had been differently shaped or differently 
arranged, either no motion at all would have been 
produced, or none which would have answered the 
same purpose. And from this, two inferences seem to 
follow at once. The first is that the watch must have 
had a maker somewhere and at some time; and the 
second is that this maker understood its construction, 
and designed it for the purpose which it actually serves. 

These conclusions, it will be noticed, would not be 
affected by the fact that we had never seen a watch 
made, never knew a man capable of making one, had 


14 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. II. 


no idea how the work could be done, and could not 
even understand the whole of the mechanism. All 
this would only exalt our opinion of the unknown 
watchmaker’s skill, but would raise no doubt in our 
minds either as to his existence or as to his having 
made the watch for the purpose it serves. 

Nor would we feel the watch explained by being 
told that every part of it worked in strict accordance 
with natural laws, and could not possibly move other- 
wise than it did; in fact, that there was no design to 
account for. We should feel that, though the action 
of every part might be in strict accordance with law, 
yet the fact that all these parts agreed in this one 
particular, that they all conduced to enable the watch 
to tell the time, did evidence design somewhere. In 
other words, we should feel that the properties of 
matter could only partly account for the watch, and 
that it required a skilful watchmaker as well, who 
utilised these properties so as to enable the watch to 
tell the time. 

Now suppose that on further investigation we found 
the watch also possessed the marvellous’ and un- 
expected property, of producing in the course of its 
movements another watch very like itself ; due perhaps 
to its containing a mould in which the new works were 
cast, and some machinery which fitted them together. 
What effect would this have on our former conclusions ? 
It would plainly increase our admiration for the watch, 
and our conviction of the skill of its unknown maker. 
If without this extra property the watch required 
a skilful maker, still more would it do so with it, 


DESIGN. 15 


And this conclusion would not be altered by the 
fact that very possibly the watch we were examining 
was itself produced from some previous one, and 
perhaps that from another. We should feel that, 
though each watch might be produced from the 
previous one, it was in no sense designed by it. 
And hence this would not in any way weaken our 
conviction as to the existence of a watchmaker some- 
where and at some time who designed the whole 
Series. 

This, then, is the watch argument. Wherever we 
find marks of design, there must be a designer some- 
where ; and this conclusion cannot be altered by any 
other considerations whatever. If, then, we find in 
nature any objects showing marks of design, the 
obvious inference is that they also must have had a 
designer. And this inference, it should be noticed, 
does not depend on any supposed analogy between the 
works of man and the works of nature. The example 
of the watch is merely given as an example, to show 
clearly what the design argument is; but the argu- 
ment itself would be just as sound if man never had 
made, and never could make, any object showing 
marks of design. ; 

Moreover, to complete the example, we must 
- assume that the existence of the watchmaker, and the 
fact of his having made the watch are already admitted 
for other reasons ; and that we are only appealing to 
these marks of design to show that when he made the 
_ watch he must have known that it would be able to 
_ tell the time, and presumably made it for that purpose. 


16 THE TRUTH.OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. TI. 


And in this case the inference seems, if possible, to 
be still stronger. 

(2.) The example of an eye. 

We will now pass on to consider the human eye 
as an example of natural organs showing marks of 
design. It is a well-known instance, but none the 
worse on that account. Now it is necessary, in order 
to produce distinct vision, that an image or picture of 
the object should be formed at the back of the eye, 
that is, on the vetina or expansion of the optic nerve, 
which communicates the impression to the brain. 
And the eye is an optical instrument for producing 
this picture, and in some respects very similar to a 
telescope. And its marks of design are abundant and 
overwhelming. 

To begin with, in both the eye and the telescope the 
rays of light have to be refracted, so as to produce a 
distinct image. And the humours in the eye which 
effect this resemble the lenses of a telescope both in 
their curved shape, their position, and their power 
over the rays of ight. Moreover, the different humours 
through which the rays pass correct what would other- 
wise be an imperfection in vision, caused by the rays 
being partly separated into different colours. The 
same difficulty had to be overcome in telescopes, and 
this does not seem to have been effected till it occurred 
to opticians to imitate in glasses made from different 
materials the effect of the different humours in the 
eye.! 

In the next place, the eye has to be suited to perceive 


1 Encyc. Brit., gth edit., vol. xxiii., p. 137. 


 * DESIGN, 17 


objects at different distances, varying from inches to 
miles. In telescopes this would be done either by 
putting in another lens, or by some focussing arrange- 
ment. How it is effected in the eye is not known for 
certain, but it plainly is effected, and with marvellous 
correctness. A landscape of several miles is brought 
within a space of half an inch in diameter. And yet 
the multitude of objects it contains, at least the 
larger ones, are all preserved, and can each be dis- 
tinguished in its size, shape, colour, and position. 
And yet the same eye that can do this can read a 
book at the distance of a few inches. 

Again, the eye has to be adapted to different degrees 
of light. This is effected by the tris, which is a kind of 
_ Screen in the shape of a ring, capable of expanding or 
contracting so as to alter the size of the central hole or 
pupil, yet always retaining its circular form. More- 
over, it is somehow or other self-adjusting ; for if the 
light is too strong, the pupil at once contracts. It 
is needless to point out how useful such a contrivance 
would be in photography, and how much we should 
_ admire the skill of its inventor. 

Again, the eye can perceive objects in different 
directions ; for it is so constructed that it can turn with 
the greatest tapidity right or left, up or down, without 
Moving the head. While in order to keep it motst 
and clean, both of which are essential] to its utility, a 
special fluid is constantly supplied, the superfluous 
‘Moisture passing through a hole in the bone to the 
nose, where it is evaporated. Moreover, this valuable 
instrument is provided in duplicate, the two eyes 

2 


18 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. II. 


being so adjusted that while each can see separately 
should the other get injured, they can, as a rule, see 
together with perfect harmony. Lastly, our admira- 
tion for the eye is still further increased when we 
remember that it was formed before birth. It was a 
prospective organ, of no use at the time when it was 
made; and this, when carefully considered, shows 
design more plainly than anything else. 

Several more points regarding the eye might be 
mentioned, but the above are sufficient to show the 
general style of the evidence. The eye is, in fact, an 
optical instrument of great complexity and ingenuity ; 
and the conclusion that it must have been made by 
someone, and that whoever made it must have known 
and designed its use, seems inevitable. 

These conclusions, it will be noticed, like the similar 
ones in regard to the watch, are not affected by our 
ignorance on many points. We may have no idea as 
to how an eye can be made, nor even understand all its 
parts, and yet feel certain that, as the eye exists, it 
must have been made by someone, and that its maker 
designed it for the purpose it serves, and evidently 
knew far more about it than we do. 

Nor do we feel the eye explained by being told that 
every part of it has been produced in strict accordance 
with natural laws, and could not have been otherwise ; 
in fact, that there is no design to account for. No 
doubt every single part has been thus produced, and 
if it stood alone there might be little to account for. 
But it does not stand alone. All the various and 
complicated parts of the eye agree in this one remark- 


DESIGN. 1g 


able point, and in this one only, that they all conduce 
to enable man to see; and it is this that requires 
explanation. We feel that there must be some 
connection between the cause which brought all 
these parts together and the fact of man’s seeing. In 
other words, the effect must have been designed. 

Nor does the fact that organisms of each kind in 
nature succeed one another by generation alter this 
conclusion. Indeed, as was shown with reference to 
the watch, it can only increase our admiration for the 
skill which must have been expended on the first 
organism of each kind. Moreover, no part of the 
design can be attributed to the parent. In other words, - 
Hf the eyes of a child show design, it is not due to the 
intelligence or designing power of its father and mother. 
They have not calculated the proper shape for the 
lenses, or the mechanism of the iris, and as a rule 
know nothing whatever about it. And the same 
applies to their parents, so that our going back ever so 
far in this way brings us no nearer to what we are in 
search of. The design is still unaccounted for, we 
still want a designer. 

We hence conclude that the marks of design in the 
eye afford, at all events, a very strong prima facie 
_ argument in favour of a Designer. And if only one 
eye existed in the universe, and there were no other 
marks of design in nature, this conclusion would be 
none the less clear. 

(3.) The evidence cumulative. 

But the argument is far stronger than this. It is 
cumulative in a trifle sense. To begin with, an eye is 

2—2 


20 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. II. 


found not in one man only, but in millions of men, each 
separately showing marks of design, and each separately 
requiring a designer. | 

Secondly, the human eye is only one example out 
of hundreds in the human body. The ear or the 
mouth would prove the conclusion equally well, and 
so would the lungs or the heart. And these various 
organs, it should be noticed, do not exist merely as 
individual organs, but as component parts of the 
human body, to which, as well as to each other, they 
are all adapted. Andifa hundred independent organs , 
showing design would require a designer, still more will 
they do so if, instead of being independent, they are 
thus adapted to one another. Moreover, the mind 
of man has to be accounted for, as well as his body ; 
and if the unforeseen action of atoms could not have 
produced a human body, with its wonderful marks of 
design, still less could they have produced a human 
mind able to know and argue about them. Indeed, 
in any case, it seems inconceivable that human intelli- 
gence could have been produced by what was itselt 
unintelligent. 

‘While, thirdly, human beings are but one out of 
many thousands of organisms in nature, all bearing 
equally the marks of design, and showing in some cases 
an even greater ingenuity than in the human eye. 

Of course, as a rule, the lower organisms, being less 
complicated than the higher ones, have less striking 
marks of design, but their existence is equally clear ; 
the flowers of plants affording some well-known ex- 
amples. And even where we cannot understand the 


DESIGN... 21 


design, we can infer its existence ; as an acorn must 
be of a very ingenious structure to enable it to develop 
into an oak-tree. It should also be noticed that 
design is shown in the instincts of certain animals, and 
in the mutual relation between plants and animals ; 
the latter living upon organic matter; which they 
cannot produce for themselves from earth, air, and 
water, but which they find ready for use in plants. 

Nor is this all, for the world itself bears traces of 
having been designed. Had it been a mere chaos, we 
might have thought that the Creator was unaware of 
what would be the result of His action. Buta planet 
like our earth, so admirably adapted for the support 
of life, can scarcely have been brought about by acci- 
dent. It must have required Wisdom as well as Power, 
to produce it; and this implies forethought and a 
Forethinker. 

We hence conclude, on reviewing the whole subject, 
that various phenomena in nature, more especially 
organs like the eye, bear strong marks of having been 
designed. And then the Unity of Nature, and the fact 
that all its parts act and re-act on each other in in- 
numerable ways, the eye for instance being useless 
without light, shows that if anything has been de- 
signed, everything has been designed. And the 
further conclusion that the Designer of the universe 
should be the same as its Creator is too plain to need 
insisting on. Now there are two, and only two, 
important objections to this argument, which may be 
conveniently called the Evolution and the Free Will 
objection. 


A aa THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. | = CHAP. U. 


(B.) THE EvoLuTION OBJECTION. 

The first objection is that everything in nature has 
been brought about in accordance with fixed laws by 
the process of Evolution ; and therefore, though it is 
possible the Creator may have foreseen all present 
phenomena, yet the apparent marks of design in nature, 
being all the necessary and inevitable results of those 
laws, do not afford any evidence that He actually did 
so. And before discussing this objection we must 
first consider somewhat carefully what we mean by 
laws of nature and natural forces. 

Now by a law of nature is meant an observed uni- 
formity in nature. For example, it is called a law or 
rule of nature that (with certain exceptions) heat 
should expand bodies, which merely means that we 
know it does so. In other words, we observe that 
heat is followed by expansion, and we therefore assume 
that the one is the cause of the other. But calling it a 
law of nature for heat to expand bodies, does not in 
any way account for its doing so. And the same is true 
universally, so that a law of nature explains nothing, | 
it is merely a summary of the facts to be explained. 

It should also be noticed that-a law of nature effects 
nothing. It has no coercive power whatever. The 
law of gravitation, for instance, has never moved a 
planet, any more than the rules of navigation have 
steered a ship. In each case it is some power or force 
acting according to law which does it. And natural 
forces are those which, as far as we know, always act 
according to some fixed law. They have no freedom 
of choice, they cannot act or not as they like; they 


DESIGN. Pecans 


must always and everywhere act the same under the 
Same circumstances. We pass on now to the subject 
of Evolution, and we will first consider its meaning, 
and then its effect on the present argument. 

(1.) The meaning of Evolution. 

Now by the term Evolution is meant to be included 
the processes of Organic Evolution, Natural Selection, 
and Survival of the Fittest. The former may be 
described as meaning that all the varied forms of life 
now existing, or that ever have existed on this earth, 
are the descendants of earlier and less developed forms, 
and those again of yet simpler ones ; and so on, till we 
get back to the earliest form of life, whatever that may 
have been. And the theories of Natural Selection and 
Survival of the Fittest explain how this may have taken 
place. For among the slight modifications that would 
most likely occur in every organism, those, and those 
only, would be perpetuated which were of advantage 
to it in the struggle for existence. And these would 
in time, it is assumed, become hereditary in its de- 
scendants, and thus higher forms of life would be 
gradually produced. And the value of these theories 
is that they show how Organic Evolution may have 
taken place without involving any sudden change, 
_ such as a monkey giving birth to a man. 

It will, of course, be noticed that Evolution is thus a 
process, and not a cause. It is the method in which 
certain changes have been brought about, and not 
the cause which brings them about. Every slight 
modification must have been caused somehow. When 
such modifications were caused, then Natural Selection 


24 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. II. 


can explain how the useful ones alone were perpetu- 
ated, but it cannot explain how the modifications them- 
selves arose. On the contrary, it supposes them as 
already existing, otherwise there would be nothing to 
select from. Natural Selection, then, rather weeds 
than plants. Among the various modifications in an 
organism, some good and some bad, it merely shows 
how the useless ones would disappear, and the useful 
ones alone would be perpetuated ; in other words, how 
the fittest would survive. But this survival of the 
fittest does not explain in the slightest degree how the 
fitness arose. If, as an extreme example, out of a 
hundred animals, fifty had eyes and fifty had not, it is 
easy to understand how those that had eyes would be 
more likely to perpetuate their species ; but this does 
not explain how they first got eyes. And the same 
applies in other cases. 

How, then, did the variations in each organism first — 
arise ? In common language they may be ascribed to 
chance, but, strictly speaking, such a thing is impos- 
sible. The word chance is merely a convenient term for 
the results of certain forces of nature when we are 
unable to calculate them. Chance, then, must be ex- 
cluded ; and there seem to be only two alternatives to 
choose from. Either the organisms in nature possessed 
free will, and acted as they did voluntarily, or else they 
did not possess free will, and acted as they did neces- 
sarily. The former theory will be examined later on ; 
the latter is the one we are now considering. And 
it is plainly equivalent to all the organisms in nature 
being mere machines, the future action of which was 


DESIGN. 25 


settled the last time a free external Force (d.e., the 
Creator) acted on them. And this on the evolution 
theory was not later than at the beginning of life. 
Since then, everything has been brought about by the 
ordinary forces of nature, or, assuming these as fixed, 
everything has been automatic and the necessary con- 
sequence of what went before. 

(2.) The effect of Evolution. 

Now, would this invalidate our previous conclusion 
that the Creator designed all the organs in nature, such 
as the eye, and hence presumably the whole of the 
universe? On the contrary, it confirms it. For to 
_put it plainly, if all free will on the part of the organ- 
isms is excluded, as well as all interference from the 
Creator, or any other external Force, the earth and all 
it contains is like a huge mass of machinery. And 
however complicated its parts, and however much they 
may act or re-act on each other, and however long they 
may take in doing so, if in the end they produce an 
organ showing design, this must have been foreseen and 
intended by the Maker of the machinery. In the same 
way if a mass of machinery after working for a long 
time eventually turned out a watch, we should have 
no hesitation in saying that whoever made the 
machinery, and set it going, intended it to do so. 
_ And is the inference lessened, if it not only turned out 
a watch, but a watchmaker as well, and everything 
else that exists on this planet ? 

All then that evolution does is to show that as the 
whole of nature forms a long and continuous process, 
‘it cannot have been carried out piecemeal ; and there- 


26 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. II, 


fore, if the end has been foreseen at all, it must have 
been foreseen from the beginning. In other words, 
just as the Unity of Nature shows that if anything has 
been designed, everything has been designed; so 
Evolution shows that if it has been designed at 
all, it has been designed-from the beginning. And 
we must hence conclude that the organs in 
nature, such as the eye, which undoubtedly show 
design, were not designed separately or as after- 
thoughts, but were all included in one grand design 
from the very beginning. And this can only increase 
our admiration for the Designer. Thus evolution, even 
in its most extreme and automatic form, cannot get rid 
of a Designer. Still less can it do so, if (as is probable) 
it is not automatic at all ; but is due to the con- 
tinuous action of the Creator, who is what is called 
immanent in nature, and directs every step. 

It should be noticed, moreover, that some of the 
most striking marks of design cannot be explained by 
evolution at all, as, for instance, the human eye. It 
is quite clear that wishing to see or trying to see, even 
if blind animals were capable of either, would never 
give them eyes. But it may be said that some of the 
earlier and less developed organisms had only rudi- 
mentary eyes, which could not see, but which in their 
structure and position resembled seeing eyes, and 
which became such in their later descendants. And 
does not this show that the eye could not have been 
designed by the Creator, or He would have given 
animals perfect eyes at once ? 

On the contrary, even if we admit that such eyes 


_ DESIGN. 27 


were useless (and this is at least- doubtful, as they may 
have been partly susceptible to light), the inference is 
still in favour of design. For there is nothing im- 
probable in the Creator producing eyes, like the rest 
of nature, in accordance with some fixed plan, and by — 
this slow process of Evolution. But on any other 
theory a rudimentary eye is quite inexplicable, for it 
was of no possible use to its owner in the struggle for 
existence. It was rather a prospective organ, slowly 
evolved and perfected during many generations, with- 
out being of any use till nearly finished. And this, as 
before said, shows design more plainly than anything 
else. It seems clear, then, that uncontrolled Evolu- 
tion—that is to say, Evolution merely by accidental 
variations, as they. are called—and Survival of the 
Fittest, cannot account for the eye at all. In fact, it 
requires not only natural selection but supernatural 
selection to explain it satisfactorily. 

But now suppose, for the sake of argument, that 
this were otherwise, and that the eye and all other 
organs had been produced merely by natural pro- 
cesses ; in the same way for instance that a human 
hand may have been evolved from a monkey’s foot, 
merely by the monkey using it as a hand, and taking 
hold of things. Does this destroy the evidence for 
design? Certainly not; it only increases it. For to 
make a foot which should in the course of time become 
a hand, as the animal kept using it as such, would 
require far more design than to make a hand straight 
off, as we should say. And the same argument applies 
universally, so that if the present organs in nature 


28 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, II. 


have all been evolved, from simpler ones, it increases the 
amount of design which must have been spent on those 
simpler ones to an extent which is practically infinite. 

Thus Evolution necessarily implies a previous Invo- 
lution ; for all forms of life must have been involved 
in the first form before they could be evolved from it ; 
so that creation by evolution is far more wonderful . 
than creation by direct manufacture. And it seems 
to many to be a far nobler conception of the Creator 
that He should obtain all the results He desired by 
one grand system of evolution, rather than by creating 
each species separately. For then the method in ~ 
which the results were obtained would be as mar- 
vellous, and show as much wisdom and foresight as 
the results themselves, and each. would be on a par 
with the other. Evolution, then, seems to be the 
highest form of creation ; and so far from. destroying 
Theism, it only destroys the difficulties of Theism, by 
showing that every single part of every single organism 
may have been designed, and yet in a manner worthy 
of an Infinite Being. 

Nor is the argument affected if we carry back the 
process of evolution, and assume that the earliest form 
of life was itself evolved from some previous form of 
inanimate matter ; and this again from a simpler one, 
and so on till we get back to the original form of 
matter, whatever that may have been. For if the . 
results as we now see them show design, then the 
deduction from this as to the existence, and still more, 
since this is admitted, as to the foreknowledge, of a 
Designer, is not weakened, but our ideas of His skill are 


DESIGN. 29 


greatly increased, if we believe that these results were 
already secured when our earth was merely a nebula. 

(C.) THE FREE WILL OBJECTION. 

We have, lastly, to consider the other, and more 
important objection, that arising from Free Will. 
Why, it is urged, may not all organisms in nature have 
possessed free will within certain limits, and have 
voluntarily selected those forms which suited them 
best ? For example, referring to the case of a watch, 
if telling the time were of any advantage to the watch 
itself, and if the spring, wheels, and hands possessed . 
free will, then it might be thought that they had formed 
themselves into that arrangement which suited them 
best ; and if so, the idea that the watchmaker foresaw 
and intended them to adopt this arrangement seems 
unnecessary. 

Now, in the case before us, as the organs showing 
design in nature, such as the eye, always conduce to 
the welfare of their possessor, the objection is cer- 
tainly credible, but, as we shall see, it is most improb- 
able; while the chief argument in its favour cannot 
be maintained. It need scarcely be pointed out that 
we are not assuming that the organisms have free 
will, but merely admitting that they may haveit. And 
if anyone denies this, the objection, as far as he is 
~ concerned, falls to the ground at once. 

(1.) Its great tmprobability. 

This is apparent for three reasons. In the first 
_ place, low down in the scale of nature, the free will of 
the organisms, if they have any, must be very limited. 
It is difficult, for instance, to imagine that plants and 


30 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. Il. 


trees have a free will at all resembling that of man; 
and yet they bear unmistakable marks of design. 
Secondly, in higher organisms, which may perhaps 
have a free will capable of working towards a definite 
end, it is difficult to see why they should have de- 
veloped organs, like the rudimentary eye, which were 
not for their own advantage, but for that of their 
remote descendants. And how, we may ask, did blind 
animals know anything about the value of sight or 
the proper means of obtaining it? While, thirdly, 
even in those cases where free will seems strongest, as 
in man himself, there is no evidence that it can effect 
anything like what is required. Suppose, for instance, 
men wanted to have three eyes instead of two, can 
anyone suggest how they would set about obtaining the 
third? And yet, if they have voluntarily given them- 
selves two eyes, they should be able with sufficient 
time to give themselves three. 

For all these reasons, then, it is most improbable 
that the marks of design in nature are due to the 
organisms themselves rather than to their Creator. But 
there is one important argument on the other side, 
which, if it could be maintained, would be sufficient 
to outweigh all this improbability. It is, that some 
beings, such as man, do, as a matter of fact, possess 
a free will, and that man can and does alter his con- 

dition, to a slight extent, by using that free will. And 
therefore it is said it is impossible for the Creator to 
have foreknown what man’s condition would be, 
because free will and foreknowledge are necessarily 
incompatible. But this latter point is disputed. 


DESIGN. 31 


(2° vee Will and F oveknowledge not incompatible. 

Now, although at first sight freedom of action seems 
inconsistent with any foreknowledge of what that 
action will be, yet on closer examination this will be 
found to be at least doubtful. For our own experi- 
ence seems to show that in some cases, at all events, it 
is not in the nature of things impossible to foreknow 
how a free being will act. 

For example, I myself may know how, under given 
external conditions, I will act to-morrow. Never being 
sure of these, I cannot be said to actually foreknow 
the event ; so that foreknowing with man is never more 
than foreguessing. But I may be quite sure how, 
under given conditions, I will act. For instance, I 
may know that, provided I keep in good health, pro- 
vided I receive no news from anyone, provided, etc., 
I will go to my office some time to-morrow morning. 
And yet I feel equally sure that this foreknowledge of 
mine does not prevent the act when it comes from 
being quite free on my part. My knowing this even- 
ing what I shall do to-morrow does not oblige me to 
do it. My foreknowledge of the event does not bring 
the event about. It is in no sense its cause. The 
act when it comes is due to my own free will, I merely 
foreknow what use I shall make of my freedom. And 
these are probably the common feelings of mankind 
on the subject. | 

It seems, then, that my foreknowledge need not be 
inconsistent with my free will. And hence, if I tell 
someone else how I shall act, his foreknowledge would 
not be inconsistent with my free will. So that in some 


32 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. “CHAP, If: 


cases, and with assumed external conditions, it does 
not seem impossible for a man to foreknow how another 
man will act, and yet without interfering with his 
freedom. In short, free will does not seem to be 
necessarily incompatible with the foreknowledge even 
of man, though it is always practically so, owing to 
man’s imperfect knowledge of the surrounding cir- 
cumstances. But the Creator knows, or may know, 
these circumstances fully, and therefore it must be 
still less incompatible with His foreknowledge. 

And this is strongly confirmed when we reflect that 
the difficulty of knowing how a free being will act, 
however great in itself, seems as nothing compared 
with the difficulty of creating a free being. Apart 
from experience, we should probably pronounce this 
to be really impossible. And yet man has been created 
somehow. Is it then unlikely that the Being who was 
able to surmount the greater difficulty, and to create 
a free man, should also be able to surmount the lesser 
difficulty, and to foreknow how he would act? More- 
over, if free will and foreknowledge are always and 
necessarily incompatible, then the Creator cannot have 
any foreknowledge of His Own acts, or else they are not 
free on His part; neither of which seems a probable 
alternative. We are not, of course, arguing from all 
this that He actually does foreknow how He will act 
Himself, or how a free man will act, but only that it 
is not in the nature of things impossible that He should 
do so ; in other words, that free will and foreknowledge 
are not necessarily incompatible. 

And this is precisely what we had to show. The 


DESIGN. 33 


marks of design in nature afford what seems to be 
overwhelming evidence in favour of the foreknowledge 
of the Creator. The objection we are considering is 
that, in spite of all this evidence, we must still deny 
it, because some of the organisms in nature, such as 
Man, possess a free will ; and therefore any foreknow- 
_ ledge is in the nature of things impossible. And the 
instant it is shown that such foreknowledge is not im- 
possible, the objection falls to the ground. 

We may now sum up the argument in this chapter. 
We first explained that by Design was meant originating 
combined with foreknowledge. We next considered 
the evidence for design in nature, choosing a single 
example, the human eye, on which to focus the argu- 
ment. And this evidence appeared complete and over- 
whelming, more especially as we were not appealing 
to it to show the existence ofa Creator, which is 
already admitted, but merely His foreknowledge. 
And we have since considered the two apparent objec- 
tions to this argument arising from Evolution and Free 
Will. But when carefully examined, the former only 
strengthens the argument, while the latter does not 
invalidate it. We therefore conclude, on reviewing 
the whole subject, that the Creator designed the unt- 
verse. 


CHAPTER III. 


THAT THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD I5 
EXTREMELY PROBABLE. 


(A.) MEANING OF THE TERM GOD. 


The Personal Being who designed and originated the 
universe : some remarks on Personality. 


(B.) Two or THE DivINE ATTRIBUTES. 


Wisdom and Power. 


(C.) THE OBJECTION THAT GOD IS UNKNOWABLE. 


This is partly true; but everything is unknowable in its 
real nature, though in each case the partial knowledge ; 
we can obtain is all we require. 


(D.) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. 


(A.) MEANING OF THE TERM GOD. 

We decided in the last chapter that the Creator 
designed the universe ; in other words, that when He 
created it He foreknew its future history. Now any 
being who is able to design we will call a personal 
being. And Gop is the name given to the Personal 
Being who designed and created the universe. Hence 
the proposition at the head of this chapter follows at 
once. 

Before, however, leaving the subject of personality, 
it should be noticed that the term when applied to 
man is commonly used in a much wider sense than is 

34 


THEISM. 35 


here given to it, and includes various other attributes, 
such as self - consciousness (or being able to think 
about oneself), as well as the power of designing. 
Many writers indeed say it involves the three ideas 
of thought, desire, and wil] , but these seem to be 
all included in designing ; for if I design anything, I 
must first of all think of it, then wish it, and then 
accomplish it. We will examine in the next chapter 
whether man is a personal being as we have defined 
the term ; but two remarks may be made here. 

The first is, that if we admit the personality of man, 
we have another and independent argument in favour 
of that of the Creator. For the Creator has somehow 
or other produced man, with all his attributes ; and, 
therefore, He cannot be a mere impersonal Being or 
Force, for such a Being could have formed no idea 
of personality, much less have produced such a result 
in ourselves ; so that if man is a personal being it 
follows that man’s Maker must be so too. 

Moreover, as we shall see, man’s personality involves 
his having a mind and spirit, though we cannot dis- 
cover them by any physical means. And this meets 
the objection that we cannot discover God by any 
physical means. It would be much more surprising 
if we could. But though the telescope can find no God 
in the heavens, just as the microscope can find no mind 
in man, the existence of each may be quite certain 
for other reasons. In popular language, all we can 
see is the house, not the tenant, in each case. 

The second remark is that the idea of human per- 
sonality introduces a great difficulty ; indeed, many 

as 


36 | THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. III. 


consider it the greatest difficulty in regard to Theism ; 
we mean that of believing that the Creator is a Per- 
sonal Being in any similar sense. For a human person, 
as generally understood, means an individual—some- 
one with a separate existence, and this implies the 
existence of something else from which he is separated : 
and it thus involves limitations of some kind. On 
the other hand, the Creator of First Cause of the 
universe seems to be Eternal, Omnipresent, and All- 
embracing. 

There is an undoubted difficulty here, but it is 
probably due to our ignorance. Personality with man 
may imply limitations, but Personality with the 
Creator need not. In the same way, seeing with man 
implies an organ of sight ; but seeing with the Creator, 
or rather His unknown attribute, which is least ‘in- 
adequately expressed by that term, certainly does 
not. In short, a human idea when transferred to the 
Deity is necessarily incomplete and imperfect. And 
it may be added, that many who hesitate to ascribe 
Personality to the First Cause do so for this very 
reason, that the term 1s inadequate rather than in- 
correct. The choice, they say, is not between per- 
sonality and something lower, but between personality 


and something higher'; and the First Cause can be 


no more represented in terms of human consciousness, 
than this latter can be represented in terms of plant 
functions. Under these circumstances, we have thought 
it better to limit the meaning of personality to the idea 


of designing. And in this sense the evidence that the | 


1 Herbert Spencer. First Principles, 4th Edition, 1880, p. 109. 


THEISM. 37 


Creator of the Universe is a Personal Being is, as we 
have seen, overwhelming. 

(B.) Two oF THE Divine ATTRIBUTES. 

We must next notice somewhat carefully two of 
God’s attributes, Wisdom and Power. Both of these 
are necessarily involved in the idea of a Personal Being 
able to design. For design, as used in this Essay, 
means originating or freely doing anything, as well 
as previously planning it. And therefore, if we use 
the word, as is often done, for planning alone, we must 
remember that a personal being is one who can both 
design and accomplish. The former implies a mind 
able to form some plan, and the latter a free force, 
or will, able to carry it out. And, therefore, a personal 
being must of necessity have wisdom to design and 
power to accomplish. And considering the vastness of 
the universe and the complexity of its organisms, it 
seems only reasonable to conclude that the Creator pos- 
sesses both of these attributes to the greatest possible 
extent, so that He is Omniscient and Omnipotent. 

But it is important to notice the meaning given to 
these words. Ommniscience, then, means possessing all 
possible knowledge. Now the only knowledge which 
might be thought impossible is how a free being would 
act in the future, and we have already shown that such 
knowledge is not in the nature of things impossible ; 
so there does not seem to be any necessary restriction 
here. 

But with Omnipotence the case is different. This 
_ means, as said above, possessing all possible power ; 
that is to say, being able to do anything which is not 


38 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. III. 


impossible. Of course some Christians may be in- 
clined to answer that with God all things are possible? ; 
but as He who said so began one of His own prayers 
with the words if it be possible, this cannot be taken 
in its widest sense. And provided the word vm- 
possible is used in its strict meaning, we have no reason 
for thinking that God could do impossible things ; 
such as make a triangle with the properties of a circle, 
or allow a man a free choice between two alternatives, 
and yet force him to choose one of them. These, then, 
are two of the great attributes of God, Wisdom and 
Power. There is a third, which will be considered in 
Chapter V. 

It should also be noticed that besides being the 
Designer and Creator of the universe in the past, 
God seems to be also its Maintainer at the present, 
being, in fact, the Omnipresent Power which is still 
working throughout nature. That there is such a 
Power can scarcely be denied, and that it is the same 
as the Creating Power is plainly the most probable 
theory. God is thus the Cause of all natural forces 
now, just as He was their Creator in times past ; and 
what are called secondary or natural causes, have prob- 
ably no existence. They may, indeed, be called secon- 
dary forces, but they are not causes at all in the strict 
sense ; for a cause must be free, it must have the power 
of initiative. Thus man’s free will, if it is free, would 
be a real secondary cause, but the forces of nature 
are mere links in a chain of necessary events. This is 
often spoken of as the Divine Immanence in nature, 

1 Matt. 19. 26; 26. 30. 


THEISM. 39 


and means little else than the Omnipresence of a 
Personal God—the all-pervading influence of One 
~ who is never so far off as even to be called near.’’ 
And it may be pointed out that if God is thus 
omnipresent He must be invisible ; since to be visible 
He would require some outline which we could see, and 
thus be in one place and not in another. And if Pietisne 
immanent in nature, and all natural forces-are the im- 
mediate effect of His Willi, then as long as His Will 
remains the same, these forces will be invariable. 
And, therefore, their being so at present is no argu- 
ment against the Theistic theory. It would be an 
argument against a capricious God, but not against 
One whose power is guided by wisdom, and directed 
for a definite purpose. 
(C.) THE OBJECTION THAT Gop Is UNKNOWABLE. 
We must lastly consider an important objection 
which may be made to the whole argument in these 
chapters. It may be said that the human mind is 
unable to argue about the First Cause, because we have 
no faculties for comprehending the Infinite ; or, as it 
is commonly expressed, because God is Unknowable. 
Now this objection is partly true. There is a sense 
in which all will admit that God is Unknowable. His 
existence and attributes are too great for any human 
mind to comprehend entirely, or for any human 
language to express completely and accurately. And, 
therefore, all our statements on the subject are at best 
only approximations to the truth. We can appre- 
hend His existence, but we cannot comprehend it, and 
_ God alone knows fully what the term means. We 


40 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. III. 


need have no hesitation, then, in admitting that God 
in His true nature is Unknowable. 

But, strictly speaking, it is the same with every- 
thing. Man in his true nature is also unknowable, but 
yet we know something about man. So, again, the 
forces of nature are all unseen and unknowable in 
themselves, but yet from their effects we know some- 
thing about them. And even matter when reduced 
to atoms, or electrons, or anything else, is still a 
mystery, and yet we know a good deal about matter. 
And in each case this knowledge is not unreal because 
it is incomplete. Why, then, should the fact of God 
being in His true nature unknowable prevent our 
having some real, though partial, knowledge of Him, 
and arranging that knowledge in scientific order? In 
short, we may know something about God, though we 
cannot know everything about Him. 

_ And it should be noticed that Natural Theology and 
Natural Science are alike in this respect—they are 
both founded on inferences drawn from the observed 
facts of nature. For example, we observe the motion 
of falling bodies, and infer the existence of some 
force, gravity, to account for this. Similarly, we 


observe the marks of design throughout nature, and ~ 


infer the existence, or at least foresight, of some 
Being who designed them. In neither case have we 
any direct knowledge as to the cause of the pheno- 
mena. And in some respects Theology is not so un- 
knowable as Science. For our own, real or apparent, 
mind and free will do give us some kind of idea of the 
existence of a personal being apart from what he does ; 


THEISM. AI 


_ whereas of a natural force, such as gravity, apart from 
its effects, we can form no conception whatever. Thus 
our knowledge of every subject is but partial, and it 
finally leads us into the Unknowable. 

But now comes the important point. This partial 
knowledge, which is all we can obtain in either Science 
or Theology, is all we require. It is not a perfect 
knowledge, but it is sufficient for all practical purposes. 
Whatever the force of gravity may be in itself, we 
know what it is to us. We know that if we jump off 
a cliff we shall fall to the ground. ‘And so in regard 
to Theology. Whatever God may be in Himself, we 
know what He is to us. We know that He is our 
Maker, and therefore, as will be shown in the next 
chapter, the Being to whom we are responsible. This 
is the practical knowledge which we require, and this 
is the knowledge which we can obtain. 

Moreover, though our reason may be to some extent 
unfit to judge of such matters, the vast importance of 
the subject seems to demand our coming to some con- 
clusion one way or the other. This is especially the 
case because important results affecting a man’s daily 
life follow from deciding the question of God’s exist- 
ence in the affirmative, and to leave it undecided is 
practically to decide it in the negative. In the same 
way, if a ship were in danger of sinking, and a steamer 
also in distress offered to take off the passengers, for 
one of them to say that he had not sufficient means to 
determine whether it was safer to go in the steamer or 
not, and would therefore do nothing and stay where he 
was, would be practically the same as deciding not to 


42 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, III. 


go in the steamer. So in the case before us. To 
refuse to decide the question owing to the alleged 
inadequacy of human reason is practically the same 
as to deny the existence of God. 

Still, it may be urged, granting that our reason must 
decide the question one way or the other, and granting 
that our reason seems to force us to conclude in the 
existence of God, are there not great difficulties in 
honestly believing this conclusion? No doubt there 
are, and no thoughtful man would think of ignoring 
them. But after all it is only a choice of difficulties. 
If reason is to decide the question, our beliefs must 
move in the line of least resistance ; and, as we have 
shown, there is less difficulty in believing each of the 
propositions here maintained than the contrary. It 
is less difficult, for instance, to believe that the universe 
had an origin than to believe that it had not. And 
this is the only kind of proof the subject admits 
of. We have not attempted to demonstrate the exist- 
ence of God, or to show that this theory is free from 
difficulties ; but we have shown that, with all its 
difficulties, it is still by far the most probable theory to 
explain the origin ‘and present state of the universe. 
And we therefore decide, judging by reason alone 
(which is the line adopted in this Essay), that the 
existence of God is extremely probable. 

(D.) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. 

In conclusion, we will very briefly repeat the main 
line of argument thus far. To begin with, in the 
present universe we observe a succession of changes. 
If these changes are not recurring, which seems in- 


ae 


THEISM. . 43 


credible, they must have had a commencement at some 
time ; and this is supported by the theories of Evolution 
and the Dissipation of Energy. And, therefore, as this 
commencement cannot have been a necessity, it must 
have been due to a Free Force somewhere. Anda Free 
Force must be a Supernatural Force, since natural 
forces are not free, but always act according to some 
fixed law, while the unity of nature points to its being a 
Single Supernatural Force, which we called the Creator. 

Next, it follows that the Creator must have fore- 
known the consequences of His own action, judging 
by the marks of design which they present. And this 
conclusion is shown to be not incompatible with either 
the process of evolution or the existence of free will 
in man or other beings. And hence He must have 
been a Personal Being, possessing both Wisdom to 
design and Power to accomplish. 

Or the whole argument may be repeated in an even 
shorter form. The universe (in its present condition) 
has not existed always, it is therefore an effect, some- 
thing that has been effected, or brought about some- 
how, and therefore like every effect, it must have 
had a Cause. And then since the effect shows a certain 
unity throughout, the Cause must have been One. 
Since the effect shows in some parts evidence of having 
been planned and arranged, the capacity for planning 
and arranging must have existed in the Cause. In 
other words, a universe showing marks of design is the 
effect, and nothing less than a Personal Being who 
designed it can be the Cause. And Gop is the name 
given to this Personal Being. 


CHAPTER: TV: 
THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING. 


(A.) Man’s MENTAL ATTRIBUTES. 


Man possesses a mind as well as a body ; two objections, 
Idealism, scarcely ever held ; and Materialism, a possible 
theory, but it has enormous difficulties. 


(B.) Man’s MorAL ATTRIBUTES. 


This will is a free will. 

Moreover, man knows that his will is free; and this 
enables him to design, and makes him a personal 
being. . 

(5.) And therefore man is responsible for his acts, that is, 

for how he uses his freedom. 

(6.) Man also possesses a moral sense ; which enables him 
to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong, 
and makes him a moral being. 

(7.) While, lastly, man has a conscience, or direct means of 

judging of this quality in some cases. 


) 
.) And his acts are partly determined by his will. 
) 
) 


(C.) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND MEN. 


There is a great mental difference, though probably only 
of degree ; and entire moral difference, since animals do 
not seem to possess a known freedom, and are hence not 
personal beings. 


(D.) CONCLUSION. 


Man consists of three parts ; his unique position. 


HAVING decided on the Existence of God, which is 
the great truth of Natural Religion, the question 
44 


ie. 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 45 


now arises whether, if nature can lead us so far, 
there is no. means of getting further. No one will 
deny that further knowledge is desirable, both as to 
God, ourselves, and our future destiny ; and is there 
no means of obtaining it? And this brings us to the 
subject of Revealed Religion, that is to say, of God’s 
making some Revelation to man. And the probability 
of this will depend partly on the character of man— 
is he a being at all worthy of a revelation ; and partly 
on the Character of God—is He a Being at all likely 
to-make a revelation? The former question alone 
will be dealt with in this chapter, and we will con- 
sider man’s mental and moral attributes separately. 
Nothing need be said about his bodily or physical 
characteristics, as they have no bearing on our present 
argument. 

And it may be pointed out at starting, that as all 
science is based on observed facts, the science of Human 
Nature must be based on the observed facts of human 
nature, and not on any a friorz reasoning as to what we 
think probable or the reverse. Moreover, in discussing 
human nature or anything else, we must of course 
argue from a perfect, and not from an imperfect, 
specimen. Savages and children are only imperfect 
specimens of humanity, and cannot be taken to repre- 
sent the species. 

(A.) MAn’s MENTAL ATTRIBUTES. 

By these are meant man’s thoughts and feelings, and 
that they are different from the matter composing his 
body seems self-evident. Matter has size, weight, 
colour, shape, and hardness. Mind has the absence 


46 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV. 


of all these. They have no conceivable meaning 
when applied to thoughts and feelings. And yet both 
mind and matter exist in man. We each feel conscious 
that we have something which ¢hinks, and which we 
call mind; as well as something which moves, and 
which we call matter (¢.e., our bodies), and that these 
are absolutely distinct from one another ; and are no 
more two names for one substance (the theory of 
Monism) than a circle and triangle are two names for 
one figure. And from the nature of the case this 
inward conviction, or human consciousness, is all we 
can appeal to. For mind, if it exists at all, being by 
hypothesis different from matter, must be immaterial, 
and cannot therefore be discovered in the laboratory 
or by any scientific process. 

‘And it must be remembered we possess no higher 
certainties than these inherent convictions, which form 
the basis of all our knowledge. Even the propositions 
of Euclid are only deductions from some other of our 
inherent convictions, such as that the whole is greater 
than its part. But still the difficulty of understanding 
this compound nature in man, part mind and part 
body, has led many to adopt one or other of two 
opposite theories, Idealism or Materialism. 

The former theory, that of Idealism, may be dis- 
missed at once, as it is scarcely ever held at the present 
day. It means that man has ideas only, and that 
there is no such thing as matter ; the whole of our life 
being regarded as a mere dream. It is a consistent 
theory, but I have never met anyone who consistently 
maintained it. 


MAN'S CHARACTER. 47 


The other theory, that of Materialism, is much more 
important. According to this there is no such thing 
as mind; what we call thoughts and feelings being 
merely very complex motions of the molecules of the 
brain. Now, that the mind and brain are closely associ- 
ated together none will deny, but it does not follow 
that they are identical. The brain may be merely the 
instrument of the mind through which it acts. And 
though, as far as we know, the mind can never act 
without the brain, it may certainly have a separate 
existence, and possibly, under different conditions, may 
be able to act separately. It is in fact just as easy to 
conceive of thought without a brain, as to conceive 
of thought with a brain. All we can say is, that 
within the range of our experience the two seem to 
be somehow connected together. 

On the other hand, there are great difficulties in 
accepting Materialism. For thoughts and_ feelings 
must be either the peculiar property of such highly 
organized forms of matter as our brains, or else the 
common property of all matter. On the former 
_ hypothesis, the proposed explanation is no explanation 
at all. If water does not think or feel when it freezes, 
nor hydrogen when it burns, nor nitrogen when it 
combines with other elements, why should these and 
similar substances when united in a man have thoughts 
and feelings as well? To assert that this is so is no 
explanation whatever. 

On the latter hypothesis, thoughts and feelings 
must exist in all matter, only in a very diluted form ; 
so that the elements carbon, hydrogen, etc., do fo 


48 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV. 


some extent think and feel, and so also does the table 
at which I am writing, and the pen and ink I am 
writing with. And then when matter assumes the 
complicated form of our brains, its thoughts and 
feelings become more clearly marked. This is no 
doubt a possible theory, but that is about all that 
can be said for it. There is no evidence whatever in 
its favour, and it is so difficult to believe as to be 
practically incredible. 

Neither of these theories then can be accepted, and 
we must abide by our inherent conviction that we have 
a mind as well as a body. This is an ultimate fact in 
human nature ; and we are as certain of it as we are of 
anything, though like some other ultimate facts it has 
to be assumed, because it can be neither proved nor 
doubted. 

One further remark may, however, be made in regard 
to Materialism. This theory, to be consistent, must 
deny not only that man has a mind, but that he has 
anything immaterial at all; he must be matter in 
motion, and nothing else. But this is disproved by 


our memory, which convinces us that we are the same © 


persons now as we were ten years ago. And yet we 
know that every particle of our bodies, including our 
brains, has changed in the interval. We must then 
have something immaterial which survives, in spite of 
everything material changing. And this is confirmed 
by our consciousness, for the sense of sameness (or 
personal identity as it is called), is another of our 
inherent convictions. 

The case, it should be noticed, is not like that of 


er 


4 ‘ 
x fl 
i 


MAN’S CHARACTER. . 49 


a tree, which may be popularly said to be the same now 
as it was ten years ago, though every particle of it 
has changed in the interval ; for as far as we know, the 
tree has nothing which connects its present state with 
its former state, it has no memory of what happened to 
it then. We have, that is just the difference. We can 
remember now what happened to us ten years ago. And 
yet our bodies now do not contain a single atom or 
molecule which they did then. We must, therefore, 
have something else beside atoms and molecules: in 
other words, something immaterial, and if so, there is 
an end of materialism in its only logical form. 

(B.) Man’s Mora ATTRIBUTES. 

We pass on now to man’s moral attributes, which 
may be thus analysed. 

(1.) Man possesses a Wiil. 

In the first place man possesses what, in common 
language, is called a wild. Strictly speaking, of course, 
the will is not anything independent of the man, which 
he possesses, as he might possess a dog; it is the man 
himself who wills, or who possesses the power of 
willing. But the common language is so generally 
understood, that it will be used here. Now the chief 
reason for believing that man has a will is, of course, 
human consciousness. Man feels that he does possess 
a will which is distinct from his body and mind, though 
closely associated with both, and apparently to some 
extent controlling both. For example, I may resolve 
to raise my hand, and thereupon do it ; or I may resolve 
to think out a proposition in Euclid, and thereupon 
do it. In each case the will is felt to be something 


4 


50 “THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. —— cHap.1v. 


distinct from the succeeding bodily or mental action ; 
so that arguing from human consciousness—and we 
have nothing else to argue from—man possesses a will 
as well as a body and mind. 

(2.) Man’s acts are partly determined by his Wil. 

In the next place, a man’s acts (and also his thoughts) 
are often determined by his will. By this is meant 
that a man’s will is able to move his limbs, so that, for 
instance, he can raise his hand when he wishes, and 
this gives him the power of determining his acts. It 
is not, of course, meant that a man’s will can move his 
limbs directly ; his limbs are moved by his muscles, 
which are directed by his nerves, and these are excited 
by motions in the brain. All that the will can do is 
to give a particular direction to these motions, which, 
in conjunction with various other forces, brings about 
the observed result. 

Now we have in favour of this action of the human 
will on the human body the universal experience of 
mankind, which is that a man can somehow or other 
move his limbs at pleasure. Indeed, the question 
whether a man can walk across the room when he 
wishes, seems to most persons to admit of a convincing 
answer: solvitur ambulando. But notwithstanding 
this, the action of will on matter seems so improbable, 
and so difficult to understand, that attempts have 
naturally been made to find some other explanation. 

But no satisfactory one can be suggested. For my 
wishing to move my body, and my moving it, occur at 
or near the same time, so frequently and so universally, 
that there must be some connection between them. 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 51 


And therefore either the wish caused the change in the 
brain (which led to moving my body) or else some 
change in the brain both caused me to move my body, 
and also to wish to do so. And one theory is about as 
inconceivable as the other. We cannot imagine how 
an immaterial wish can move molecules of matter, or 
how the movement of molecules of matter can pro- 
duce an immaterial wish. The former, however, 
seems the less improbable, for two reasons. 

The first is that the will generally precedes the act : 
é.g., | wish to raise my hand, and subsequently do it : 
not I raise my hand first, and subsequently wish to do 
it. This alone is not conclusive; for, as just said, 
moving the hand resulted from certain movements in 
the brain, and these may have been previous to the 
wish, and possibly produced it, but the presumption 
is plainly the other way. 

The second is from the process of evolution. For if 
the will is only the effect of material action and never 
its cause, it is clear that all the material actions might 
have gone on just as well without there being any will 
at all. It would have been a useless by-product. 
But in this case it is almost certain that they would 
have done so, and that the will would never have 

been evolved; since evolution cannot perpetuate and 
| perfect what is useless, and a will that can never 
influence matter is from a material point of view quite 
useless. These arguments then support—what to most 
_ persons scarcely needs supporting—the datly experience 
of mankind, which is that a man’s will can, somehow 
or other, move his limbs, and hence determine his acts. 


4—2 


52 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, IV. 


(3.) Man’s Will ts free. 
It must next be noticed that man’s will is a free will, 
_ and this is a most important point. It is quite distinct 
from the previous question. Then we decided that a 
man’s raising his hand, for instance, was the result of 
his wishing to doso. We have now to consider whether 
the wish was free on the man’s part, or whether he 
could not help it ; the latter view being called that of 
Necessity or Determinism, and meaning that a man’s 
actions are necessarily determined and not free. 

Of course, both the theories of Freedom and De- 
terminism admit that a man’s will is influenced by 
motives or reasons, and always acts in conformity 
with the strongest ; in other words, that the prevailing 
motive prevails. But the difference between them 
lies in the ambiguity of this word motive. What are 
all the motives influencing the will? Are they only 
external, and such as are brought from without to 
bear upon the will; or are they partly internal, and 
such as the will may, but need not, evolve out of its 
own powers, or out of previously acquired materials ? 
Moreover, is their strength of a uniform kind, so that 
they merely want combining, like physical forces, to 
yield a resultant? Or do they differ so widely that 
the will alone can decide as to what is their relative 
strength ; whether, for instance, the motive to yield 
to some animal passion is stronger than that to sacrifice 
oneself for the good of others? The former view 
corresponds to the doctrine of Determinism, the latter 
to that of Free Will. ee 

Of course, in every case a man’s birth, education, and 


MAN’S CHARACTER, 53 


surroundings, that is to say his heredity and environ- 
ment, will greatly influence his choice. These have 
been likened to a player’s hand at whist, which he 
may play well or badly. So a man’s free will may 
make the best or worst of his opportunities. The im- 
portant point, however, is not what limits there are 
to the freedom of man’s will, but is it free at all ? 

Now, strange to say, though the freedom of the will 
appears self-evident to most men, and is taken for 
granted in all human affairs, no absolute proof can be 
given of it. Everything can be consistently explained 
on the opposite theory. For, however much a man 
may think his choice is free, it can always be said that 
he could not help deciding as he did. This is admitted. 
But, on the other hand, no proof can be suggested of 
the existence of free will which cannot be given. An 
absolute proof is, from the nature of the case, unattain- 
able. We are thus obliged to judge by probability ; 
and there are two important arguments on each 
side. 

Now the great argument in favour of free will is, of 
course, human consciousness. It is one of the most 
universal, and one of the most certain, convictions of 
mankind that he has free will. This conviction is 
forced upon him by his own daily experience. He 
_ feels, for instance, that he is free to raise his hand or 
not. And this conviction, resting as it does on the daily 
experience of the human race, cannot be upset by any 
mere a priort arguments showing that it is improbable, 
or that there are difficulties in understanding how a 
man’s will can be free ; for in every case it is more 


SA THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV. 


likely that the premises of such reasonings are wrong, 
rather than the consciousness of mankind. 

And the argument is strengthened when we consider 
that man’s belzef in his freedom, which is undisputed, 
must have had both a cause and a purpose. And as 
to its cause, it is hard to see how, on the evolution 
theory, the belief in human freedom, if untrue, could 
ever have been evolved. For if man were only an 
automaton, no amount of believing that he was free 
could alter his condition in the slightest degree, and 
therefore the belief would be utterly useless, and yet it 
has been not only evolved, but perfected to such an 
extent that it now forms an inherent part of human 
nature. And as to its purpose, it is hard to see why 
God, Who has somehow or other created man, should 
have implanted in his nature an inherent conviction of 
falsehood ; indeed, to many this appears incredible. 
The argument, then, from human consciousness alone 
seems conclusive on the subject. 

But, as a matter of fact, this argument is amply 
confirmed by human experience. For experience shows 
that a man’s conduct is variable and quite unlike the 
uniformity which we find in chemistry and physics, 
where there is no free force, and everything is brought 
about in accordance with fixed laws. So that, for 
this reason alone, the existence of some free force in 
man to account for this variable conduct is not very 
unlikely. And if it be objected that human conduct, 
when considered as a whole, is not variable, since under 
the same circumstances most men will act in the 


same way, the inference against free will does not ~ 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 55 


follow. For there is nothing unlikely in most men 
choosing to act in the same way ; and this does not at 
all resemble the uniformity of inorganic nature, where 
particles of matter always and invariably act in the 
Same way. These, then, are the two arguments in 
favour of free will—human consciousness, confirmed by 
human experience ; and no more powerful arguments 
can be imagined. 

On the other hand, the great argument against 
human freedom is that it would be an anomaly in 
Nature ; since natural forces always act in the same 
way, and any free force, able to act or not as it likes, is 
absolutely unknown. If, then, man possesses such a 
force, no matter how limited it may be, he is partly, 
at least, a supernatural being, not bound by fixed 
laws. 

Now all this may be admitted, but what then? Is 
it incredible that man should be a partly supernatural 
being? Certainly not. For God, Who created man, 
is a Supernatural Being ; He possesses free will, and 
He might, if He thought fit, bestow some of this special 
attribute on man, allowing him, that is to say, within 
certain limits, and up to a certain extent, to act in one © 
way or another. No doubt, to persons who study 
physical science alone, the existence of any free force 
in man seems most improbable. But, on the other 
hand, to those who study the actions of men, such as 
barristers, judges, or politicians, the idea that man is 
a mere automaton might seem equally improbable. 

And does not the same principle apply in other cases ? 
If a man were to study inorganic chemistry alone, 


56 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV. 


living, say, on an island where vegetation was unknown, 
would not a tree be a complete anomaly to him ? And 
yet trees exist and have to be allowed for. Chemistry 
has, in consequence, to be divided into two parts, 
organic and inorganic, and rules regarding the former 
are admitted not to apply to the latter. This is plainly 
the scientific way of treating the subject ; and why 
should not the same method be adopted in regard 
toman? He is found by consciousness and experience 
to have free will. This, then, must be admitted and 
allowed for. The forces we meet with in the universe 
have, in consequence, to be divided into two groups— 
those which are fixed, and those which are free; the 
former including all the invariable forces of nature, 
and the latter the variable force which man possesses, 
and which is called his free will. This may be an 
anomaly, but the evidence for it is overwhelming. 

Moreover, the anomaly is greatly lessened by the 
fact that man already occupies a very anomalous 
position. Claiming free will for him is not like claiming 
free will for some mineral or plant. He is anyhow a 
unique being, incomparably the highest and most 
important on this planet; and that he should be 
partly supernatural as well is not so very unlikely 
after all. 

While, lastly, we must remember that the whole idea 
of natural forces being invariable is only a deduction 
from our reasoning. And we know more about our- 
selves where we are conscious of freedom, than we do 
about the surrounding universe, where we infer this 
uniformity. Indeed, our own free will is the only 


MAN'S CHARACTER. 57 


force of which we have any direct knowledge, and the 
so-called forces of nature, such as gravity, are, strictly 
speaking, only assumptions which we make to account 
for observed facts. And, as we have already pointed 
out, even these forces seem to have originated in the 
Free Will of the Creator; so that as far as we can 
judge, volition of some kind is the ultimate source of 
all force. 

The other important argument against free will is 
that it would be inconsistent with the Conservation of 
Energy, since it is said any voluntary action would 
involve the creation of energy. But this is at least 
doubtful ; for the will might be free as to its actions, 
were it only able to control energy without producing 
it. And it could do this if it possessed the power of 
altering either the time or the direction of force. By 
altering the time is meant freely choosing the time 
when an act should take place ; deciding, for instance, 
whether to raise my hand now or a minute hence. 
And by altering the direction is meant deciding, for 
instance, whether to raise my right hand or my left. 
And if the will possessed either of these powers, a free 
being would be like a reservoir of latent force, which 
the will could transform into actual motion when and 
how it pleased. And thus the will would be free as 
to its actions, without creating any energy at all. 

We must therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole 
subject, that man’s will is free, since this alone agrees 
with the consciousness of mankind, and fully accounts 
for the variability of human conduct. While, on the 
other hand, though an anomaly in nature, it is not on 


58 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV: 


that account incredible ; nor is it inconsistent with the 
conservation of energy. 

(4.) Man knows that his Will ts free. 

Having now decided that man’s will is free, little 
need be said about the next point, which is that man 
knows that his will is free, since, as we have shown, 
this is the chief argument for admitting its freedom. 
There are, however, many other arguments for proving 
that man believes that he has free will, for it is shown 
by his acts. It is this known freedom which enables 
a man to set before him an end, and deliberately work 
towards it ; in other words, it enables him to design, 
and makes him a personal being, as the term is used in 
this Essay. And it is needless to point out that the 
evidence of human design is universal. 

Again, human language affords a conclusive proof 
that man has always and everywhere believed himself 
to be free. For not only do such terms as J will, I 
choose, I decide, exist in all languages ; but these and 
similar expressions are so essential to conversation 
that it is even difficult for anyone to argue against 
free will without using terms which imply that he 
and his opponent are both free. Indeed if “I” 
stands for nothing more than a changing group of 
molecules, it is difficult to see how I can argue at all. 
However, we need not pursue this subject, since it is 
undisputed that man belzeves that he has free will. 

(5.) Man’s responsibility for his acts. 

We next come to man’s responsibility. By this is 
meant that a man is responsible for the way in which 
he uses his freedom ; and this seems to follow at once 


i ad 
MAN'S CHARACTER. 59° 


from his knowing that he is free. Moreover, it is 
amply confirmed by human consciousness, for a sense 
of responsibility seems to be among the inherent 
convictions of mankind. Of course, there may be 
exceptions to this as to most other rules: but taking 
mankind as a whole, he certainly believes in his 
responsibility. 

And he also believes that this responsibility is 
primarily to God, or to some other supernatural Being. 
No doubt he is also responsible to his fellow-men, more 
especially to those among whom he is living; but a 
moment's reflection will show that this is not the 
primary idea. For man must in the first place be 
responsible to his Maker rather than to his fellow-men. 
In the same way a child is first of all responsible to his 
parents, and then, secondly and consequently, to his 
brothers and sisters. And, therefore, because God has 
made us, we are responsible to Him ; and because He 
has placed us among other men, and presumably 
wishes us to take some part in human society, we are 
in a lesser degree responsible to them also. So that 
the brotherhood of man, as it is called, naturally follows 
from the Fatherhood of God. 

(6.) Man’s moral-sense of right and wrong. 

Next, as to man’s moral sense of right and wrong. 
Now it is undeniable that man has the remarkable 
faculty of distinguishing the quality of acts which are 
_ free, and regarding some as right and others as wrong, 
the latter being called sins. And it may be noticed 
in passing, that the existence of moral evil or sin 
seems to many to be an additional argument in favour 


60 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, IV. 


of man’s freedom ; for otherwise God must be the sole 
author of man’s misdeeds. Of course they would not 
in this case be really sims, for if man has no free will 
-he is a mere machine, and can no more sin against 
God (or man either) than a watch can sin against its 
maker. Such a man might be imperfect, and so might 
a watch, but he could not be wicked ; and yet few will 
say that there are no wicked men in the world. Now 
we will call a being who is thus able to distinguish 
the quality of acts a moral being. Man is therefore a 
moral being, having this moral sense, as it is called, of 
distinguishing right from wrong. 

It will perhaps make the meaning of this moral sense 
plainer if we compare it with one of man’s other senses, 
say that of sight. The one, then, distinguishes right 
from wrong, just as the other distinguishes red from 
yellow, or green from blue. And as the fact of man’s 
possessing the faculty of distinguishing colours is 
not disproved by one man thinking a colour blue 
which another thinks green, and some individuals 
here and there being colour-blind or having lost their 
eyesight ; nor, to give another example, is the fact of 
man’s possessing a sense of taste disproved by one man 
thinking a taste nice, which another thinks nasty ; so 
the fact of man’s possessing a moral sense is not 
disproved by one man thinking an act right which 
another thinks wrong, or possibly by individuals here 
and there not recognising any difference between right 
and wrong. 

And it should be noticed, this sense of right and 
wrong is quite distinct from the pleasant or unpleasant _ 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 61 


consequences which are associated with certain acts. 
For instance, I may avoid putting my hand into hot 
water, because I remember having done so before, and 
that it was painful; but this is quite different from 
avoiding an act because it is wrong. It is also quite 
distinct from expediency, or the idea of benefiting by 
an act. For an act may not benefit us at all, or may 
even injure us, and yet it may be right. In short, 
‘fifty experiences of what is pleasant or what is 
profitable do not, and cannot, make one conviction 
of what is right ;” the ideas differ in kind, and not 
merely in degree. 

Nor is man’s moral sense to be depreciated, or con- 
sidered untrustworthy, because it had, or may have 
had, a very humble origin in times past. For if so 
man’s reason must be depreciated too on the same 
account ; and if human reason is not to be trusted 
there is-an-end of all science. 

(7.) Man’s consctence. 

Lastly, as to man’s conscience. This is often con- 
fused with his moral sense, but the two are quite 
distinct, as a little reflection will show. For a man 
might possess a moral sense, and be able to classify 
acts as right or wrong, and yet have no direct means 
of knowing to which class any particular act belonged. 
He might have-to work this out by reasoning ; and in 
difficult cases we sometimes do so. But as a rule this 
is unnecessary. For mankind possesses a very re- 
markable something, called a conscience, which tells 
him intuitively, and without either ‘argument or 
reasoning, that certain acts are right and others 


~~ 


62 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, Iv. — 


wrong. Conscience is thus like an organ of the moral 
sense, and may be compared to the eye or organ of 
sight ; for just as the eye perceives that certain colours 
are red and others blue, so the conscience perceives 
that certain acts are right and others wrong. In each 


case the perception is almost instantaneous, and quite — 


distinct from a deduction from reasoning. Conscience, 
it will be noticed, does not make the act right or 


wrong, any more than the eye makes the colour red 


or blue ; it merely tells us what acts are right and what 
wrong. 

Now that mankind as a species possesses a con- 
science is indisputable. It is shared alike by young 
and old, rich and poor, educated and uneducated. 
It has existed in all ages, countries, and races. We 
all have it ; and what is very remarkable it seems to 
be independent of our will, and not at our disposal. 
We do not correct it, but it corrects us ; for it not only: 
tells us what acts are right and what wrong, but 
_ approves definitely of our doing the former, and dis- 
approves just as definitely of our doing the latter. 
Indeed, one of the most striking effects of conscience 
is this feeling of, remorse or self-condemnation after 
wrong-doing. And such a feeling is practically uni- 
versal. And it is, of course, an additional argument 
(tf such were needed) in favour of man’s free will ; for 
if a man’s conduct is not free, why should he feel SOITY 
for acting as he did ? 

These, then, are the moral attributes of the human 


race, and it follows at once that man is a free and ve- ~ 


sponsible being. But as this conclusion is often dis- 


SO” 2 ae ee 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 63 


puted, because of the similarity between animals and 
men, and the difficulty of admitting that they also 
are free and responsible beings, or else of showing 
wherein the distinction lies, we must examine this 
subject. 

(C.) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND MEN. 

Now the bodily difference between certain animals 
_ and men is admittedly small ; and if, as many think 
probable, both were evolved from some common 
ancestor, it is plainly unessential. And though the 
accompanying mental difference is enormous, it is 
probably only one of degree, for the higher animals 
appear to possess the rudiments of a mind. So we 
must pass on to the moral attributes of animals. 
Unfortunately our knowledge here must always be 
imperfect ; for unless some discoveries are made in 
the language of animals, we can know nothing of their 
consciousness, which is the basis of argument in regard 
to man ; and therefore we cannot say (referring to the 
first three points) whether they have a free will or not. 
Of course, if they have not, the objection falls to the 
ground at once, as this would be a clear distinction 
between animals and men. But we have no right to 
assume this, and there is a good deal to be said on the 
other side, at least in regard to the higher animals, 
so the subject had better be left an open one. 

- But with regard to the next point, that of known 
freedom, we are on.surer ground, for not only is there 
no reason, except of course human analogy, for think- 
ing that animals possess this, but there are strong 
reasons for thinking they do not. For the proof of 


64 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV. 


man’s believing himself to be free does not depend 
solely on his consciousness. It is shown by his acts, 
as it enables him to destgn—t.e., to work towards a 
foreseen end—and there is nothing corresponding to 
this in animals. For though many of their works 
undoubtedly show design somewhere, it does not seem 
to be due to them. This kind of unconscious designing 
is called ¢nstenct, and there are four reasons for thinking 
that it differs from real design implying forethought. 

The first is, that it is by no means strongest in the 
most intelligent animals, such as monkeys, horses, 
and dogs. On the contrary, this kind of designing 
seems to decrease in the scale of animal life, just as 
real intelligence increases. And this is very remark- 
able, and of itself suggests that there must be some 
difference between the two. 

The next is, that animals are only able to design in 
a few special cases. A bird, for example, will con- 
struct her nest admirably, but she does not seem able 
to construct anything else. In the same way, a bee 
will build its hive on the most perfect mathematical 
principles, the three rhombs, which close the hex- 
agonal prisms, haying the exact angles so as to contain 
the greatest space with the least material! But it 
cannot apply its mathematics to anything else. 
Similarly, a spider and its web, and many other in- 
stances, might be given. This makes it probable that 
such works are due to some special and particular 
cause, which is called instinct, and do not result from 


1 Encyc. Brit., gth edit., vol. iii., p. 490. The angles are 109° 28’ 
and 70° 32’. 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 65 


the animal’s possessing a known freedom of. action, 
which would enable it to design equally well in other 
cases. 

And thirdly, this is confirmed by the fact that, if 
these works resulted from the design of the animals 
themselves, they must possess intellectual powers of 
a very high order. But this is quite untenable, since 
in other respects they act with the greatest stupidity. 
A bee, for instance, with all its mathematics, cannot 
very often, if it has flown in through an open window, 
retrace its way, but will buzz helplessly against another 
which is shut. Moreover, the instincts of animals 
are the same all over the world, and not more advanced 
in some countries than in others, as would probably 
_ be the case if they were due to reasoning. 

And fourthly, even in these few cases there is no 
gradual improvement in what the animal does. The 
‘last cell built by a bee is no better than the first, and 
no better, as far as we know, than cells built by bees 
thousands of years ago. The bee gains nothing by 
experience ; it never makes an alteration by way of 
improvement on what it did before ; whereas man, in 
consequence of his known freedom, is always trying 
to improve upon his previous works. Animals are 
thus like producers, who work by a rule given to them, 
and not like creators, who design for. themselves, and 
profit by their previous experience ; and the young of 
animals without any experience whatever have the 
same instincts as the old. Plainly, then, an animal’s 
_ instinct is born with it, and not acquired ; and there- 
fore, any apparent design there may be in what is done 


5 


66 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IV. 


by instinct cannot be attributed to the animal itself, 
any more than the design shown in its eyes and other 
organs, but to its Maker. 

But it may be urged that in some of the higher 
animals, especially those in contact with man, we find 
certain acts which do seem to imply forethought and 
design. A dog, for example, will bury a bone one day 
and go and look for it the next. But when once it 
is admitted that what are apparently far more striking 
instances of design are to be explained by instinct, it 
seems more probable that these are to be explained in 
the same way. 

And this is confirmed by the fact that animals do 
not appear to have any idea of responsibility, or any 
sense of right and wrong, which in man are the result 
of his known freedom. Of course, it may be said that 
as we punish a dog for doing what we dislike, it implies 
that we hold him responsible for the act. But this 
does not follow. The punishment may only appeal to 
the dog’s association of ideas. The dog, like other 
animals, has a natural impulse to avoid pain, and 
therefore it avoids the act which its memory associates 
with pain without necessarily feeling responsible for 
it, or considering it to be wrong; while in the vast 
majority of cases we never think of holding an animal 
responsible for its acts, or look upon its injuring any- 
oneasasin. Weconclude, then, that moval attributes 
form the great distinction between animals and men ; 
because though animals have, or may have, a free will, it 
is not a known freedom, and therefore they are not able, 
like men, to design, and are hence not personal beings. 


MAN’S CHARACTER. 67 


Two further remarks may be made before leaving 
this subject. The first is, that though there are diffi- 
culties in placing this known freedom as the difference 
between animals and men, there are as great, if not 
_ greater, difficulties in placing it anywhere else. If we 
say that an ape or a dog can design, the difficulty is 
not lessened ; it is merely transferred lower down the 
scale. Can a jellyfish design? and if so, can an oak 
or a seaweed? The momentous attribute of known 
freedom, unless it is common to al] life, which is most 
improbable, must begin somewhere ; and it seems less 
difficult to place it between animals and men than 
anywhere else. 

The second and more important point is, that our 
ignorance about animals is no reason for doubting what 
we do know about man. To do this would be most 
illogical. Indeed, we might as well deny that a man 
could see, or hear, or remember, because there are 
difficulties in deciding where sight and hearing and 
memory commence in the scale of animal life. 

(D.) CoNcLusION, 

We may now conclude this chapter. With regard 
to man, it is clear that his bodily, mental, and moral 
attributes are quite distinct. A man may be strong 
in body, and yet of weak intellectual power ; or, 
again, a man may have a great intellect, and yet be 
of weak moral character. This makes it probable that 
human nature consists of three parts—body, mind, and 
spirit ; the mind corresponding to the mental reasoning 
part of man, and the spirit to the free moral part. 
And as a man’s body and mind are both (to some 


ee 


68 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, IV. 


extent) under the control of his free will, or spirit, 
this latter must be looked upon as his real se/f. Thus 
he is not strictly speaking an organism at all, but a 
free being served by organs both of body and mind. 
They are fis ; they do not constitute jim. He is the 
personal being, the free spirit conscious of its freedom, 
which controls both. 

And our present conclusion is quite plain. We have 
shown that man is a free being, his freedom distinguish- 
ing him from all natural forces, and making him in 
part supernatural. And he is a responsible being, his 


responsibility being due to his known freedom, and ~ 


distinguishing him from all animals. He has thus a 
unique position. Nothing else on this planet resembles 
him, and in his attribute of known freedom which 
enables him to design, and therefore makes him a 
personal being, he resembles God alone. 


CHAPTER... ¥. 
THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN’S WELFARE. 


(A.) THE EVIDENCE IN ITS Favour. 

Since God is a Moral as well as a Personal Being, He must 
be capable of caring for all His creatures ; and He prob- 
ably would do so, especially for man ; while the marks 
of beneficent design seem to prove the point. But there 
are two great difficulties. 


(B.) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN. 
(1.) Some counter-arguments, showing that if insignificant, 
God may still care for him. 
(2.) Man’s real importance. 
(3.) The supposed inhabitants of other planets. 


(C.) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL. 

(1.) Physical evil in animals. The objection that it is vast 
in amount, wholly unmerited, and perfectly useless, 
cannot be maintained. 

(2.) Physical evil in man. Several ways of lessening the 
difficulty. Its explanation seems to be that God’s 
designing evil does not mean His desiring it, as it is 
essential for forming a man’s character. 

(3.) Moral evilin man. Also designed but not desired, as 
it is essential to free will; and wicked men are as 
necessary as any other form of evil. 


(D.) Conclusion. 


God’s Goodness includes both Beneficence and Righteous- 
ness. 


HAVING discussed in the last chapter the character of 
man, we have next to consider, as far as we have any 
69 


70 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, V. 


means of doing so, the Character of God ; more especially 
whether He seems to take any interest in man’s wel- 
fare. And we will first examine the evidence in favour 
of this; then the two great arguments on the other 
side from the apparent insignificance of man, and the 
existence of-evil ; and will conclude by considering in 
What sense the term Goodness can be ascribed to God. 

(A.) THE EvIDENCE IN Its Favour. 

To begin with, God is certainly capable of taking an 
interest in man’s welfare, for He is not only a Personal 
Being, but also a Moral Being. This follows at once 
from what may be called the moral argument for the 
Existence of God, or that. depending on man’s free 
will. It is briefly this, that no combination of natural 
forces, which are uniform and always act the same 
under the same circumstances, can ever produce a free 
force, able to act or not as it likes. The idea seems . 
inconceivable. If, then, man possesses such a force, 
which we have already admitted, it cannot have been 
derived from any natural forces, nor can it have made - 
itself, so it must have come from some previous free 
force, and this, again, from a previous one, and so on 
till we finally arrive at an eternally existing Free Force. 
And this, it will be remembered, was precisely the con- 
clusion we reached in Chapter I., though from quite a 
different argument. . 

Having admitted this, the next step is that this 
Free Force, or Free Being, must be conscious of His 
Freedom, and must therefore be a moral Being, able 
to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong. 
Indeed, the mere fact that man possesses this re- 


~ > 


GOD’S CHARACTER. 71 


markable faculty makes it certain that man’s Maker 
must do the same. For this faculty differs in kind 
from all physical and mental faculties, and cannot 
therefore have been evolved from them alone. In 
other words, physical and mental forces can never by 
any possible combination produce out of themselves 
that which was never in them—the idea of right and 
wrong. So that a moral man implies a moral God. 

And this is amply confirmed by our conscience, which, 
as before said, tells us that certain acts are right and 
others wrong, though it does not make them right or 
wrong. It is thus only an intermediary between 
Someone else and ourselves; and this Someone else 
can only be God, Who gave us our conscience, so that 
in popular language it may be called the Votce of God. 
And it tells us we ought to act right, because this is 
the way in which God wishes us to act. But if so, it 
follows again that He must be a Moral Being capable 
of distinguishing the quality of acts. 

Now a personal and moral God must certainly be 
able to take an interest in the welfare of His creatures ; 
and, as we shall see, it is not only probable that He 
would do so, but there is abundant evidence that this 
is actually the case. 

In the first place, it is distinctly probable that God 
would care for all the beings whom He has created ; 
or why should He have created them? And the 
probability that He would care for man, who, like 
Himself, is a personal and moral being, and whom He 
has thus endowed with some of His own attributes, — 
is of course much greater. Moreover, we have no 


72 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


knowledge scientifically of any other being in the 
universe who is either personal or moral; so that 
though man may be quite unworthy of God’s care, 
we know of no other being who is more worthy of it. 
And it is scarcely likely that a Creator would not take 
an interest in any of His works. 

And this a priori argument is confirmed by observa- 
tion. For everywhere in nature, and especially in 
man, we meet with marks, not only of design, but of 
beneficent design—that is, of design tending to the 
welfare and happiness of the beings in question. 
Take for instance the human eye, which we con- 
sidered in Chapter II. As there shown, all its various 
and complicated parts agree in this one particular, 
that they all conduce to enable man to see. And 
the inference from this, that God, Who somehow or 
other brought all these parts together did so with 
the intention of enabling man to see, seems irre- 
sistible. And the further conclusion that God’s 


object in thus enabling man to see, or at least the 


chief object, was to conduce to his welfare, is equally 
obvious. And the same applies to thousands of other 
organs throughout nature. 

But there are two slight objections. The first is, 
that the human eye has some defects, in being liable 
to various kinds of disease and accident; and this is 
of course true. But these defects are incidental to 
the construction of the eye and not the object of its 
construction. The eye was made to see and not to 
_ ache. That it does ache now and then is in all 
probability due to its being such a complicated 


GOD'S CHARACTER. 73 


instrument, and therefore it scarcely affects the 
- argument. 

The other objection is, that beneficial organs like 
the eye, though they abound throughout nature, are 
not the only ones we meet with. There are others, 
like the claws and teeth of wild animals, which are 
just the opposite, and seem designed to give pain to 
other creatures. But this is quite untenable. They 
were plainly designed to enable the animal to secure 
its food, and are perhaps necessary for that purpose, 
and they all tend to the welfare of their possessor. 
There is, in fact, not a single organ in nature the object 
of which is to produce pain. Where pain is produced 
it is merely a sort of by-product. Neither of these 
objections then can be maintained. 

(B.) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN. 

But now to consider the other side. There are two 
chief difficulties; the first being from the apparent 
insignificance of man. For though he is doubtless by 
far the most important being on this planet, and en- 
dowed with some of the divine attributes, yet, after 
all, how utterly insignificant he is in comparison with 
his Maker. This is no new difficulty,! but modern 
science has increased its force by showing that our 
earth is but one member of the solar system, which 
again is itself a mere unit in the universe of stars. 
And, we may ask, is it likely that the God Who rules 
these millions of stars should take any interest in the 
beings on a small planet like our earth? This is the 
difficulty we have to face; and we will first consider 

sti sed tae 4 


74 - THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


some counter-arguments, then man’s real importance, 
and lastly the question of other planets being in- 
habited. 

(r.) Some Counter-arguments. 

To begin with, though it seems unlikely that God 
should take any interest in such insignificant beings 
as us men, it also seems unlikely that He should ever 
have designed and created such beings? And yet 
He has done so. And having created them, there is 
at most only a slight additional improbability, if any 
at all, that He should take an interest in their welfare. 
Thus, ‘‘ His interest in the beginning ts the pledge of 
Fis interest to the end’’; and having once created the 
human race, it is unlikely that He should cease to care 
for it. 

Moreover, lack of interest in His creatures, however 


insignificant they may be, is scarcely a worthy attri-. 


bute to ascribe to God; least of all to the God of 
nature. For all through nature we find nothing re- 
sembling a neglect of small things. On the contrary, 
everything, down to the minutest insect, seems 
finished with as much perfection as if it alone existed 
in the universe. ,True greatness does not consist in 
despising that which is small; and it may be a very 
part of God’s infinite greatness that nothing should 
be too small for Him to care about, just as nothing is 
too large. And while a Being, Who can govern the 
universe, and attend to its millions of stars, is no 
doubt great—inconceivably great; yet He is surely 
greater still—cnconceivably greater—if He can also 
attend to our tiny planet, and its inhabitants; and 


GOD'S CHARACTER. 75 


can do this so thoroughly, as not only to take an 
interest in the human race, but in the welfare of each 
one of its members. 

And the whole analogy of nature is in favour of His 
doing so; for the forces of nature never deal with 


_ matter in bulk, but with each particle separately. A 


stone, for instance, is attracted to the ground, because, 


~and only because, each particle of it is so attracted. 


In the same way if God takes an interest in the human 
race (and, as just said, it is hard to imagine His not 
doing so), it may be because, and only because, He 
takes an interest in each individual member of it. 
Moreover, whether we are insignificant or not, we 
are each of us unique. We are not like particles of 
matter. Millions of these are exactly alike, but no 
two men are exactly alike ; not even to the same extent 
as plants and animals. For each man is a separate 
spirit, a personal being distinct from all else in the 
world. And therefore, as we have each something 
special about us, God may take a sfecial interest in 
each of us. Doubtless such an idea seems very 
wonderful ; but no one who has any knowledge of the 
marvels of nature will think it, on that account, 


_incredible. 


And then as to the discoveries of science, there is 


here also a good deal to be said on the other side. 
For though the telescope has shown us that our world 


is like a mere drop in the ocean, the microscope has 
shown us a new world in each drop ; and the infinitely 
hittle, as it is called, is as wonderful as the infinitely 
great, and man still occupies a sort of central position. 


76 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


When, for instance, we examine a single part of a 
single organ, say the zs of the human eye, we find 
that it consists of a multitude of details, each of which 
is seen to be more and more complex the more we are 
able to magnify it, and so on without apparently any 
limit. And all this makes it more than ever likely 
that the God, Who has shown such marvellous skill 
in the formation of the various organs of a man’s 
body, should care for the man himself, the personal 
and moral being, who is the possessor of these organs. 
Nor is the argument weakened by the fact that the 
organs of animals and plants also show a wonderful 
amount of design, for as far as we know, in their case, 
there is no personal and moral being to care about. 

Again, science has not only shown us the magnitude 
of the universe, and that there are millions of stars, 
millions of miles apart, but it has also shown us its 
unity, and that all its parts are closely connected 
together. And certainly the idea that the God, Who 
rules these stars, should take an interest in us men, 
is no harder to believe than that the gases, which are 
burning in these stars, should influence our spectro- 
scopes. And yet they do; so that if this were all, it 
would still lessen the sineuty a Bog) deal. 

(2.) Man’s real importance. 

But this is not all, for science has also taught us a 
great deal about man himself, and his long develop- 
ment ; and this has of course a most important bear- 
ing on the argument. Indeed, it is scarcely too much 
to say, that the theory of Evolution has reversed the 
position altogether, and shown that so far from being 


GOD’S CHARACTER. 77. 


insignificant, man is in reality a being of the greatest 
importance. For we now know that our earth has 
existed for thousands of centuries, gradually evolving 
higher and higher forms of life, and all leading up to 
man, who is the heir of all the ages, the inheritor of 
those thousands of useful adaptations which have been 
perfected by his long line of ancestors. 

And what is very important, organic evolution seems 
obliged to stop here. Man is not merely a link in a 
series leading on to still more perfect beings, but he is 
the end of the series. In all probability there will - 
never be a higher being on the earth, for the causes 
which produced his evolution thus far have now ceased 
to act, and can carry it no further. When, for in- 
stance, man discovered the use of tools, there was an 
end to any further evolution of the hand. When he 
took to wearing clothes, there was an end to the body 
becoming hardier and stronger through exposure. 
When he took to using weapons and inventing ma- 
chinery, mere physical strength was no longer essential, 
and could no longer be increased. 

In short, when Evolution began to take a mental 
turn, there was an end to bodily development. Hence- 
forth there was to be no evolution of any higher 
species, but the gradual perfecting of this one species 
by mental and moral, and not physical improvements. 
Man is thus not only the highest being that ever has 
been evolved, but, as far as we can judge, the highest 
being that ever will be evolved on this earth. So that 
the vast scheme of evolution, inconceivable alike in 
magnitude, in duration, and in complexity, is seen to 


78 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


be one plan, with man apparently at the end of it. 
And therefore, of course, as everything was designed 
by God, he must have been the foreknown and in- 
tended end, from the very beginning ; the first thought 
in creation, as well as the last. 

And when we thus regard man as the goal towards 
which nature has all along tended, and as the chief 
object which God—the Author of nature—had in view 
all the time, it seems to increase his importance ten- 
fold ; and shows conclusively that in God’s sight he 
must be anything but insignificant. 

Nor is it difficult to suggest a reason for this. For 
man, as before said, has a mind, as wellasa body ; and 
though the discoveries of science have in some respects 
depreciated his body, by showing its evolution from 
other animals, they have at the same time magni- 
fied his mind, for it is his mind that has discovered 
them. And every fresh discovery man makes can only 
exalt him still higher for making it ; so that the mind 
of man now shows him to be a far nobler being than 
could possibly have been imagined some centuries ago. 
And certainly a mind that can discover the motions of 
distant stars, and the elements of which they are 
composed, cannot be thought insignificant. And if 
we believe that a man’s mind, like his body, has been 
slowly evolved through countless ages, 1t seems to 
still further increase its importance. 

Moreover, man has not only a mind, but also a 
spirit, or free will, able to act right or wrong ; and 
perhaps (if we were unfortunately not so far from it 
ourselves) we should see that moral perfection, always 


GOD'S CHARACTER. 79 


acting right though one might act wrong, is as much 
above mental greatness, as this latter is above mere 
physical strength. But though we cannot properly 
appreciate it, God can. He is Himself a Spirit, and 
therefore, in His sight, a child possessing a mind and 
spirit, and thus made to some extent in His own 
image, and capable of developing moral perfection, 
may be of more value (because more like Himself) 
than a universe of dead matter. And if so, what shall 
we say of the millions of men who have lived, and are 
now living, on this earth ? Surely they welfare cannot 
be thought insignificant by anyone, least of all by 
their Creator. 

(3.) The supposed inhabitants of other planets. 

But it may be said, what about other planets ? 
Are not some of these inhabited, and does not this 
weaken the argument a good deal, and show that God 
cannot take any special interest in man, or other beings 
on this earth ? 

Now there is, of course, no reason why God should take 
any special interest in the beings on this planet, more 
than in similar beings on other planets, if such exist, 
but this is very doubtful. For modern science has 
shown that natural laws, such as those of gravity, light, 
heat, etc., are the same throughout the entire universe : 
and this makes it probable that the laws of life are 
also the same. And, therefore, if living beings exist 
on other planets, we should expect them to be some- 
what similar to the living beings here; and to have 
been evolved in a somewhat similar manner. And 
this requires that a large number of favourable circum- 


cA 


80. THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, V. 


stances, such as a regular and moderate heat supply, a 
suitable atmosphere, sufficient water, etc., should all 
be found on some other planet, not only now, but 
during the long ages which (judging by this earth) 
appear necessary for the development of the higher 
forms of life; and this certainly seems unlikely. 

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that 
God would create an immense number of suns or stars, 
many of which have probably planets round them, if 
only one out of the whole series was to be inhabited 
by personal beings. But however strange this may 
seem to us, it is in strict agreement with God’s methods 
in nature, where what seems to be needless waste is 
the universal rule. So this is not an insuperable 
difficulty. 

The question, however, may well be left an open 
one, for even if other planets are inhabited, there is no 
reason why God should not take an interest—and per- 
haps a great interest—in their inhabitants, as well as in 
ourselves ; since all His capacities are boundless, and 
even an infinitesimal part of zfinity may be very large. 

(C.) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL. 

We now come to the other, and perhaps more im- 
portant, objection, that arising from the existence of 
evil. The world, it is said, is full of pain and misery, 
and is not this fatal to its having been designed and 
created by a God Who cares for the welfare of His 
creatures ? Or, to put the objection in other words, 
does not the existence of this evil, or indeed of any 
evil at all, using that word in its widest sense, to include 
both physical suffering and moral wrong, show that 


GOD'S CHARACTER. — 8I 


God either could not or would not prevent it? If He 
could not, he is not All-Powerful: if He would not, 
He is not All-Good. This is an undoubted difficulty ; 
and, considering its importance, we will examine it 
in detail, both as it affects animals and men. 

But it may be remarked at starting that the difficulty 
is common to all theories. For though the idea that 
all this evil is due to a good God seems improbable, the 
opposite idea that the world was designed by a bad 
Being, who wishes men to be miserable, is out of the 
question. Every happiness in life contradicts it. And 
so does the general consent of mankind, for however 
much men have puzzled over the existence of evil, 
they have seldom thought the existence of good needed 
any explanation. While the only other alternative, 
that the Creator is indifferent, and does not care 
whether man is happy or miserable, seems also im- 
probable, since He has Himself made us capable of 
feeling pleasure and pain, and keenly sensitive to 
both. And if this difficulty is urged as opposed to 
Theism altogether, or the existence of any Supreme 
Being, we must remember that though Theism may 
not account for it satisfactorily, neither Atheism nor 
Agnosticism can account for it at all. When con- 
sidered by itself it leads towards Dualism, or the 
eternal existence of both a Good and an Evil Power. 
But the unity of nature is hopelessly opposed to such 
a view. Moreover, the difficulty, though great, is by 
no means insuperable. 

(r.) Physical evil in animals. 

The objection here is that animals of all kinds suffer 

6 


82 THE TROTH “OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


a vast amount of pain and misery, which is wholly 
unmerited and perfectly useless ; since, having no 
moral nature, they can neither deserve pain nor profit 
by it. We will consider these points in turn. 

And first, as to the extent to which animals suffer. 
One animal does not suffer more because a million 
suffer likewise, so we must consider the suffering as it 
affects the individual, and not the total amount. And 
as to its extent we know but little. That animals 
appear to suffer greatly, e.g., a mouse being caught by 
a cat, is obvious; but how far they really suffer is 
doubtful, as their feelings are probably far less sensitive 
_than those of man ; and therefore it is quite misleading 
to think what we should feel like in similar circum- 
stances. This is evident when we reflect that suffering 
is connected with the brain, as is shown by the fact 
that savages suffer much less than civilised nations. 
And therefore we should expect animals, whose mental 
development is far less advanced, to suffer still less ; 
while the lower forms of life we should not expect to 
suffer at all. 

And this also is confirmed by observation, as several 
facts have been noticed which almost force us to this 
conclusion. For instance, a crab will continue to eat, 
and apparently relish, a smaller crab, while being itself 
slowly devoured by a larger one; and this clearly 
shows that the crab can feel scarcely any pain, since 
the almost universal effect of pain is to destroy the 
pleasure of eating. And many other instances are 
known.' The only argument on the other side is 


1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxv., p. 257. 


GOD'S CHARACTER. 83 


that the bodies of the lower animals when ill-treated 
appear to writhe as if in great pain ; but in many cases 
there is certainly no pain at all. For instance, if a 
worm is cut in half, the tail end, just as much as 
the other, will writhe, though obviously it can feel no 
pain. 

Moreover, animals, except domestic ones which are 
partly trained and civilised, appear to have no anticipa- 
tion of suffering, and no power of concentrating their 
thoughts upon it, which increases it so greatly in man. 
And assuming, with reference to the above example, 
that the mouse is not to live always, its being de- 
-Stroyed by a cat is at most a very short misery, and 
perhaps involving altogether less pain than if it died 
from disease or gradual decay. On the whole, then, 
it seems probable that pain in the animal world is 
far less than is commonly assumed, and in the lower 
forms of life nearly, if not entirely, absent. 

Still it may be said this lessens the difficulty, but it 
does not remove it. For why should animals suffer 
pain at all? It is, as far as we can judge, wholly 
unmerited, since, having no moral nature, and there- 
fore no responsibility, they cannot have done anything 
wrong to deserve it. But we must remember that if 
the pain which animals suffer is unmerited, the pleasure 
which they enjoy is equally so. The two must in all 
fairness be taken together. And it is probable that 
were there no capacity for pain, there would be no 
capacity for pleasure, since the same nervous system 
gives rise to both. And, as a matter of fact, animals 


seem to have a much greater amount of pleasure than 
6—2 


84 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


pain. Their life is, as a rule, one of continual enjoy- 


ment, and probably, at any given moment, the number 
of animals of any species that are happy is incom- 


parably greater than those that are miserable. In 


short, health and happiness is the rule, sickness and 
pain the exception. 

Nor can it be said that pain is useless to animals ; 
for though they have no moral nature to be improved, 
they have a physical nature to be preserved and trans- 


mitted, and the sense of pain may be essential for this. 


It is indeed a kind of sentinel, warning them of dangers 
which might otherwise lead to their destruction. For 
example, if animals felt no pain from excessive heat, 
they might not escape when a forest was burning ; 
or, if they felt no pain from hunger, they might die of 
starvation. And the same applies in other cases, so 
that pain is, in reality, a great preservative of life. 
We have, thus, no sufficient reason for saying that the 
pain which animals suffer is useless ; and with this the 
last and most important part of the objection falls to 
the ground. 

(2.) Physical evil in man. 

-We now pass on to the case of man. We unfortu- 
nately know a great deal of the suffering which he 
endures. The struggling lives, the painful diseases, 
the lingering deaths, not to mention accidents of all 
kinds, are but too evident. And it may be asked, 
would an Omnipotent God, Who cared for man’s 
_ welfare, have ever designed all this ? 

Now it is important to remember that a great deal 
of physical evil originates in moral evil, which will be 


eo ee Co 


hx 
Ee ee ee eee ee ne ee 


GOD’S CHARACTER. 85 


considered later on. By far the greater part of the 


- pain and misery which men endure is probably brought 


- about by their own wickedness and folly, or by that 
of their fellow-men. It is their doing, and not God's ; 
and they alone must be blamed for it. 

In the next place, many of the so-called evils of life 
do not imply any actual suffering. If for instance 
a man loses the sight of one eye, he need not have 
any pain ; and were he originally blind, the possession 
of even one eye would have been looked upon as a 
_ priceless blessing. But being always accustomed to 
_ having two eyes, having only one is now looked upon 
as an affliction ; and the same applies in other cases. 
Again, however great may be the sufferings of life, 
_ they cannot be as great as its joys, since nearly every- 
one wishes to go on living. And there is also a vast 
amount of unconscious happiness in the world, for men 
are so constituted that they may be happy (and as a 
tule are so) without knowing it : though no one can be 
unhappy without knowing it. While it is undeniable 
that human pain, like that of animals, is most useful, 
serving to warn men of dangers and diseases, which 
would otherwise lead to their destruction. 

Moreover, in a material world like ours, if the forces 
_ of nature act according to fixed laws, a certain amount 
of suffering seems inevitable. If, for example, the 
force of gravity always acts as it does, it will occasion- 
_ ally cause a tower to fall and injure someone. Such 
an event could only be avoided by God’s continually 
interfering with these forces, or, in popular language, 
working miracles. But this would render all human 


86 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. Vv. 


life a hopeless confusion. While, at present, owing to 


these forces being invariable, a great deal of the evil — 


which might otherwise result from them can be foreseen 
and avoided. If, however, men will not avoid it,— if, 
for instance, in spite of the numerous eruptions of 
Vesuvius, they still choose to go and live on its slopes,— 
it is hard to see how they can blame anyone but them- 
selves. 

And even in other cases, when the evil cannot be 
foreseen, as in an unexpected earthquake, it is at least 
open to doubt whether (assuming so many million men 
have to die every year) it is any worse for a few 
thousand to die like this, suddenly and together, than 
that they should all die slowly, one by one, and often 
after a long illness. It of course appeals more to the 
imagination, but it probably involves less suffering. 

Thus we may say that human suffering, excluding 
that due to man himself, is by no means so great 
as it seems ; that it is, as a rule, more than counter- 
balanced by human happiness; and that a certain 
amount seems not only useful, but in a world like 
ours inevitable. But though all these considera- 
tions are undoubtedly true, and undoubtedly lessen 
the difficulty, they do not remove it ; since there is far 
more suffering in the world than can be thus accounted 
for. 

The following appears to be the true explanation ; 
that though God foreknew all this suffering when He 
created the world, and in this sense designed it, He 
need not have desired it, but may have desired some- 
thing else, for the attainment of which however this 


“¢ GOD’S CHARACTER. __ 87 


suffering was a necessary condition. And this some- 
thing else must obviously have been the training and 
perfecting of man’s character, for which suffering of 
some kind seems essential. 

For if there were no suffering in the world, there could 
be no fortitude, no bravery, no patience, no com- 
passion, no sympathy with others, no self-sacrifice for 
their good—nothing, in fact, that constitutes the highest 
type of man. In other words, a being such as man can 
: onlybe made perfect/through suffering. And therefore 
this suffering implies no defect in God’s design. It is 
a means, and, as far as we can judge, the only possible 
means for developing the highest and noblest char- 
acter in man, such a character indeed as alone makes 
him worthy of admiration. Moreover, a man’s char- 
acter can only be formed by himself, it cannot be given 
him ready-made ; and it can only be formed gradually, 
it cannot be done all at once. And therefore, if God 
wishes a man to have the special character acquired 
by constantly bearing suffering, it can only be obtained 
by constantly giving him suffering to bear: 

Here, then, we have the most probable explanation 
_ of the physical evils which man endures. Their object 
- is to develop and perfect his character ; and as this is 
in itself a good object, and as it cannot be obtained in 
any other way, they may well have been designed by 
a good God. And the more we contemplate the vast 
amount of human suffering—and there certainly is a 
vast amount in spite of all explanations—the more we 
feel how vast must be also the Goodness of God, what 
an intense longing He must have for man’s truest and 


88 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


best welfare, to be willing to bring it about at such a 
tremendous cost. So that, as it has been happily 
expressed, if God is good at all, He must be very good 
to have designed such a world as ours. 

(3.) Moral evil in man. 

But it may be urged that, even admitting the neces- 
sity and value of physical evils, these are greatly 
aggravated by moral evil—that is, by a man wilfully 
causing misery to himself and others—and might not 
this have been avoided ? In other words, could not 
all sim have been excluded from the world? But 
assuming man to be a free being, it could not have been 
avoided, for freedom is always liable to abuse. And 
therefore, if God decided that man was to be free in 
some cases to act right or wrong, it necessarily follows 
that he may act wrong. No Omnipotence could pos- 
sibly alter this without destroying man’s freedom. 
And hence, though the Creator designed all the moral 
evil in the world, He need not have desired it, but (as 
before) may have desired some totally different object, 


for the attainment of which, however, the existence of 


this evil was a necessary condition. 

Nor, again, is it difficult to suggest what this object 
may have been. For unless man is a free being, he 
can be little better than a machine—a correctly- 
behaved machine, no doubt, and one able to talk and 
think, but still only a machine. And God may not 
have wished that man, who is, as far as we know, His 
highest and noblest work, should be only a machine. 
Indeed, the superiority of free men who act right, 
though they might act wrong, to mere machines i is 


GOD’S CHARACTER. | 89 


obvious to everyone; and it may far outweigh the 
disadvantage that some of them should act wrong. 
And therefore, though we have to pay dearly for 
freedom, it is well worth the price; and the infinite 
value of goodness, as it is called, may justify, though 
_ nothing else could, the risks involved in giving man 
free will. 

Nor is there anything unlikely in the Creator thus 
caring about the conduct of His creatures. We cer- 
tainly should not admire an earthly ruler who regarded 
traitors to his cause and his most faithful adherents 
with the same indifference ; or an earthly parent who 
did not care whether his children obeyed him or not. 
Why, then, should we think that God, Who has not 
only given us free will, but also a conscience by which 
to know what is right (7.e., what is Hzs will), should 
yet be indifferent as to whether we do it or not? 
Everything points the other way, that God, Who is 
a Moral Being, and Who has made us moral beings also, 
wishes us to voluntarily act right. And therefore of 
necessity He allows us to act wrong, with all its con- 
sequent miseries, in order to render possible our thus 
freely choosing to act right. 

Or to put the argument in other words, a free being 
is far higher than a being who is not free, and yet a 
free being cannot exist without the possibility of his 
acting wrong. And, therefore, however strange the 
conclusion appears, moral evil, or at least its possi- 
bility, is essential to the universe, if it is to be worthy 
of its Creator, if, that is, it is to contain beings of the 
highest order—fersons and not things. Or, to put it 


gO THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. Vv. 


still shorter, if God is good, it is only natural that He 
should create beings capable of goodness, and there- 
fore of necessity capable of badness, for the two must 
go together. 

And if it be still urged that, as God foreknew how 
men would use their freedom, He need not have created 
those who would habitually use it wrongly ; in other 
words, there might be no wicked men in the world, 
the answer is obvious. Wicked men are as necessary, 


perhaps more so, than any other form of evil to test 


a man’s character, and to develop moral perfection. 
For just as physical evil, pain, suffering, etc., can alone 
render possible certain physical virtues, such as forti- 
tude and patience; so moral evil, or sin, can alone 
render possible certain moral virtues. 

If, for instance, there were no sin in the world, 
there could be no forebearance with the faults of others, 
no moral courage in standing alone for an unpopular 
cause, no forgiveness of injuries, nor (what is perhaps 
the highest of all virtues) any rendering good for evil. 
These require not merely the possibility, but the actual 
existence of sin, and they would be all unattainable 
if we had nothing ‘but physical evils to contend with, 
and there were only good men in the world. The case 
then stands thus. Evil men are essential to an evil 
world. An evil world is essential to proving a man’s 
character. Proving a man’s character is essential to 
his freely choosing to serve God ; and his freely choos- 
ing to serve God seems essential to his being such a 
servant as God would care to have. | 

One other point should be noticed before we con- 


> 
4 
r 


GOD’S CHARACTER. gl 


clude. It is that with regard to the conduct of free 
beings, foreknowing is not the same as foreordaining. 
God may have foreknuwn how a man would use or 
misuse his freedom, without foreordaining or com- 
pelling him to do either, since his conduct is by hypo- 
thesis free. In the same way, in human affairs it 
is possible in some cases, and to some extent, to fore- 
know what a man will do, but without in any way fore- 
ordaining or compelling him to do it. This is a most 
important distinction, and we have no reason whatever 
for saying that God foreordained any man to misuse 
his freedom, though He may have foreknown that he 
would do so. 

(D.) CONCLUSION. 

We may now sum up the arguments in this chapter. 
We have shown that God is certainly able to take an 
interest in man’s welfare ; and that it is not only prob- 
able that He would do so, but that the marks of bene- 
ficent design afford abundant evidence that He actually 
does. On the other hand, the so-called tnsignificance 
of man is more apparent than real, since his position 
at the end of evolution shows his great importance ; 
while his mind and spirit fully account for this, and 
prove him to be an altogether unique being, certainly 
in regard to this earth, and perhaps in regard to the 
universe. 

And our conclusion in regard to the Existence of 
Evil is this. It is undeniable that God must have 
foreknown all the evil in the world when He created 
it ; and in this sense He designed it. But He may also 
have foreknown, what we can only foveguess, that this 


Q2 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. V. 


evil is but temporary, and that it will lead to a more 
than compensating permanent good, which could not 
be obtained in any other way. God, it must be re- 
membered, has eternity to work in, and His plan 
embraces the whole universe ; so it is not surprising 
that, with our finite knowledge, we do not altogether 
understand it. Suffice it to say, that we do under- 
stand it to some extent. We perceive that the evils 
in this world “‘ need not be ends, but may be only 
means to ends ;”’ and, for all we know, they may be 
the very best means for obtaining the very best ends. 
Indeed, as before said, they seem to be not only the 
best, but the only possible means for developing all 
that is highest and noblest in man. We conclude, 
then, that though God designed both the evil and the 
good in the world, He need not have desired both : 
and there are indications in nature sufficient to show 
that the good is what He desired, and the evil is only 
its inevitable companion. 

This conclusion is often expressed by saying that 
Goodness is an attribute of the Deity ; and the term 
may certainly be admitted. For though it is doubtless 
a very inadequate one, and does not fully express the 
reality, it is immeasurably nearer the truth than 
badness, or even indifference would be. But it is 
important to notice the sense in which it is used, and 
in which alone it is true. 

By God’s goodness, then, or by His taking an interest 
in man’s welfare, is not meant a mere universal benefi- 
cence, or wishing to make everyone as happy as pos- 
sible, irrespective of his conduct. The existence of 


GOD'S CHARACTER. 93 


. evil seems fatal to such a theory as this. But rather 
_ God wishes to promote man’s welfare in the truest and 
best way, not by gratifying every passing fancy, but 
by training and developing his character, so that he 
may be able to enjoy the highest form of happi- 
ness. God’s character is thus not only beneficent, but 
righteous also. And He therefore wishes man to be not 
only happy, but righteous also. And He therefore of 
necessity (as a man cannot be made righteous against 
his will) gives him free will, with the option of being 
unrighteous, and consequently unhappy. So that this 
view of God’s character, combining beneficence with 
righteousness, not only accounts for the marks of bene- 
ficent design all through nature, but also for the exist- 
ence of evil, especially moral evil, in man, and seems the 
only way of reconciling them. In short, beneficence 
and righteousness are both good, and the Goodness of 
God includes both. 

Now if we admit that goodness is an attribute of 
the Deity, the analogy from God’s other attributes 
would show that He possesses it in its highest perfec- 
tion ; so that God is a Being not only of infinite Power 
and Wisdom, but also of perfect Goodness—the word 
“perfect ’’ being obviously more suitable to a moral 
- quality like goodness than “ infinite ’’ would be. And 
it will be noticed that these three great attributes 
of the Deity correspond to the three chief Theistic 
arguments. The first, that from causation, proves the 
existence of an All-Powerful Creator ; the second, that 
from design, proves that He is All-Wise; and the 
third, that from human consciousness, proves that He 


, eke: iene: ey ne ich we: oan atk 

character 3 in the last chapter ; so we arrive at the grand ‘3 
. s - conclusion that God is physically pie men- — : 
tally All-Wise, and morally All-Good. 


CHAPTER VI. 


THAT THEREFORE GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION 
TO MAN. 


This depends chiefly on man’s future destiny. 


(A.) THE IMMorRTALITY OF MAN. 
By this is meant the personal immortality of man’s spirit, 
and there are several arguments in its favour : 


(1.) From his unique position. 
(2.) From his unjust treatment. 
(3.) From his vast capabilities. 
(4.) From his inherent belief. 
(5.) Counter arguments. 


(B.) THE PROBABILITY OF A REVELATION. 

(1.) From God’s character. 

(2.) From man’s character ; since mentally he can under- 
stand it, and morally he can profit by it ; while he 
also desires it, and his unique position makes him 
not altogether unworthy of it. 

(3.) Two objections : a revelation is said to be unjust, as 
only given to certain men ; and anyhow incredible 
unless quite convincing. But neither of these can 
be maintained. 


WE decided in the last two chapters that man is a free 

and responsible being, and that God takes an interest 

in his welfare. We now come to the subject of a 

Revelation, which we will define as any superhuman 

knowledge directly imparted by God to man. And 
5 


“~ 


96 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI. 


by superhuman knowledge is meant any knowledge 
which man could not otherwise obtain; such, for 
instance, as God’s object in creating him, His wishes 
in regard to his conduct, or any past or future events 
of which he would otherwise be ignorant. And that 
God could, if He chose, impart such knowledge, either 
by visions, or dreams, or in some other way, can 
scarcely be disputed. Nor will anyone affirm (least of 
all an Agnostic) that we know enough about God to 
be quite sure that He never would chose to do so. 
And therefore a revelation is certainly posszble ; but 
is it at all brobable ? And as this will depend to a great 
extent on man’s future destiny, we will first consider 
the question of his Immortality, and then the proba- 


bility, or otherwise, of God’s making a Revelation to him. ~ 


(A.) THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN. 

By this is of course meant the immortality of man’s 
spirit, and if we admit (as was admitted in Chapter IV.) 
that man is a compound being, consisting of a free and 
partly supernatural spirit, his real se/f, which controls 
his body and mind, what becomes of this spirit at 
death ? We know what becomes of the body: the 
various molecules are re-arranged in other groups, and 
the natural forces are transformed into other natural 
forces. Nothing is lost or -annihilated. But what 
becomes of the spirit ? If this is a free supernatural 
force, the idea that it should perish altogether, when 
the accompanying natural forces are re-arranged at 
death, is most unlikely. Indeed the apparent in- 
destructibility of matter points to a corresponding 
immortality of spirit. : 


P Pe 


REVELATION, ) 97 


No doubt God could, 7f He chose, destroy either, just 
as He could create either; but without some super- 
- natural interference, the creation or destruction of 

either seems incredible. And yet if a man’s spirit is 

not destroyed, it must survive ; for it does not seem to 
_have any component parts into which it can be split 
up like a man’s body. And therefore, as it cannot be 
subjected to the only form of death of which we have 
any knowledge, which is the re-arrangement of con- 
-stituent parts in other groups, it may survive for ever. 
And there are four chief arguments in favour of this 
personal immortality of man; which are derived from 
his unique position, his unjust treatment, his vast 
capabilities, and his inherent belief. And we will con- 
‘sider each in turn, and then see what can be said on 
the other side. 
(x.) From his unique position. 
The first argument is from man’s unique position, 
' more especially. when we regard him as the last and 
noblest result of the vast scheme of evolution, which has 
been in progress here for so many thousands of years. 
For such a vast scheme, like everything else, requires 
not only a cause, but a purpose; and however much 
evolution can explain, it cannot explain itself. Why 
should there have been any evolution at all ? Why 
‘should a universe of dead matter have ever produced 
life? There must have been some motive in all this, 
and what adequate motive can be suggested ? 
_ We can only look for an answer in man, who seems 
not only the highest creature on this planet (or as far 
-as we know on any planet), but also a personal and 


7 


98 THE TRUTH, OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI. 


moral being, so here if anywhere we must find the ex- 
planation. Evolution would then have God for its 
Cause, and man for its purpose—an undoubtedly 
adequate Cause, but is it an adequate purpose : ? 

For the human race cannot exist for ever as it Is. 
Everything points to this earth sooner or later falling 
into the sun, when all forms of life must cease. And 
therefore, if man is not immortal, the whole of evolu- 
tion which has led up to him as its final end will still 
have had no permanent result. And no result which is 
not permanent seems altogether worthy of the Eternal 
God, the Author of this evolution. But if, on the other 
hand, man is immortal, and if this earth, with its 
strange mixture of good and evil, is a suitable place in 
which to form and test his character, and if perhaps 
God wishes hereafter to be surrounded by men who 
have stood the test, and have proved their fidelity to 
Him by enduring suffering for His sake ; then it may 
lead to a permanent result. And then its creation 
would not be such a hopeless mystery as on the opposite 
theory ; for the perfecting of immortal beings seems ~ 
an object worthy even of God. 

Thus if we deny the immortality of man, the whole 
of evolution becomes meaningless, and nature is a — 
riddle without a solution. But if we admit it, there 
is at least the possibility of a satisfactory answer. 
For then, as just said, nature is seen to be only a means 
to an end—a temporary (though perhaps necessary) — 
means to a permanent end—the end being to produce 
man (a being endowed with free will), and when this 
is done to provide a suitable environment for his moral 


REVELATION, 99 


training. And this will enable him, if he wishes, from 
being a free man, to become also a righteous man, that 
is, aman who acts right, though he might act wrong, 
and thus to some extent worthy to share in his 
Maker’s immortality. 

And we must remember, man could not have been 
created righteous, using the word in its strict sense. 
He might have been created ferfect (like a machine), or 
innocent (like a child), but to be righteous requires, as 
Just said, his own co-operation. It is a self-acquired 
virtue, due to the habit of freely acting right, though 
one might act wrong; and this of necessity is a slow 
process, with some failures. But the end aimed at is 
a permanent, and therefore perhaps an adequate, end, 
and the present world seems exactly suited to attain 
this end, as it affords a man boundless opportunities 
(almost every day, if he likes to use them) of acting 
right, though he might act wrong. 

And thus the gradual training and perfecting 
of man seems the only adequate explanation of 
the world, the real object of its long evolution. 
And yet, if he is not ¢mmortal, this object can never 
be attained, for no one reaches moral perfection 
here; while even if they did, it would only last 
for a short time. And is it likely that such a vast 
scheme should end in failure, or at most in only a tem- 
_ porary success? Is it not rather probable that if man 
is the end of evolution, then God, the Author of evolu- 
tion, must value him; and if God values him, He is 
not likely to let him perish for ever. In short (as it 
has been well put), such vast progress from such small 


Tee 


100 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI. 


beginnings points to an end proportionately great, 
and this requires the immortality of man. On the 
whole, then, we may say in the words of Romanes, 
one of the great champions of evolution, ‘only by 
means of this theory of probation is it possible to give 
any meaning to the world, 7.e., any ratson a étre of 
human existence. ’? 

(2.) From his unjust treatment. 

The second argument is from man’s unjust treatment 
in this world. For, as we saw in the last chapter, God 
is a Moral Being, capable of distinguishing right from 
wrong, and, as far as we can judge, He is One Who will 
always act right Himself. And yet His treatment of 
men in this world seems most unjust. Wicked men are 
allowed to prosper by their wickedness, good men suffer 
unjustly, while some men’s lives seem to be nothing 
but suffering ; and how is this to be accounted for ? 

There is here again one, and only one, satisfactory _ 
explanation, which is that this life is not the whole 
of man’s existence, but only a preparation for a future 
life—a short trial for a long hereafter. And, looked at 
from this point of view, the most apparently miser- 
able lives may afford as valuable training, perhaps 
more so, than the outwardly happy ones. The temp- 
tation to dishonesty, for example, can be as well resisted 
by a poor man who is only tempted to steal sixpence, 
as by arich man who is tempted to embezzle a thousand 
pounds. And if resisting such a temptation helps to 
form a man’s character, as it certainly does, and 
hence, perhaps, to fit him for a better life hereafter, 

1 Thoughts on Religion, 1895, p- 142. 


REVELATION. IOI 


this can be as well done in the one case as in the other. 
And the same principle applies universally ; even a 
child has his temptations, which are very real to the 
child, though they may seem ridiculous to us. So 
that if this life is intended as a time of probation in 
which to form a man’s character, we cannot imagine 
a better system or one more admirably adapted to the 
end in view. 

Nor is this all, for these trials and sufferings them- 
selves may be the very means of adding to man’s 
future happiness. The joy of having resisted tempta- 
tion, for instance, would be impossible if men were 
never tempted ; and the joy of rescuing others from 
suffering and sin, and thus perhaps making everlasting 
friendships, would be impossible if there were no 
suffering, and no sin. And the same applies in other 
cases. And therefore man’s long probation in this 
life, with its incessant battle against evil, may (for all 
we know) increase his future happiness in a way which 
nothing else could possibly do, and to an extent of 
which perhaps we can form no conception. No pain 
or suffering, then, can be looked upon as useless, and 
no position in this world as one to be despised ; in short, 
to anyone who believes in a future state, life is always 
worth living. And we may be sure that in a future 
state every injustice will be made good, and all wrongs 
will be righted. 

(3.) vom his vast capabilities. 

The third argument is from man’s vast capabilities. 
For he does not seem adapted to this life only, and has 
aspirations and longings far beyond it.. His powers 


Cl 


I02 THE. TRUTH’ OF) GHRISTIANITY-<«. ~ CHAP. VI. 


seem capable of continual and almost endless develop- 
ment. Nearly all men wish for immortality. This 
life does not seem to satisfy them entirely. For 
instance, men, especially scientific men, have a longing 
after knowledge which can never be fully realised in 
this world. A man’s capacities are thus out of all 
proportion to his destiny, if this life is all; and to 
many it seems improbable that the Creator should have 
endowed men with such needless and useless capacities. 

And this is strongly confirmed by the analogy of 
nature. For example, a bird in an egg shows rudi- 
mentary organs which cannot be exercised so long as 
it remains in the egg ; and this of itself is a proof that 
it is intended some day to leave the egg. On the other 
hand, a full-grown bird seems, as far as we can judge, 
to be entirely adapted to its present state, and not to 
have any longing after or capacity for any higher state ; 
and therefore we may infer that no higher state is 
intended for it. And by the same reasoning we may 
infer that some higher state is intended for man, for 
his mental and spiritual nature is not entirely satis- 
fied by his present life. In short, all animalsseem made 
for this world alone, and man is the one unsatisfied 
being in the universe. 

Moreover, the period of preparation in a man’s life 
seems out of all proportion to the time prepared for, 
if death ends all. The development in a man’s moral 
character often continues till nearly the close of his life. 
His character has then reached maturity. But for what 
is it matured ? Surely not for immediate destruction. 
Must not the wise Creator, Who designed everything 


REVELATION. _ 103 


else in the universe with such marvellous skill, have 
intended something better for His noblest creature than 
mere boundless capabilities, unsatisfied longings, and 
a lifelong preparation all for nothing ? 

(4.) From his inherent belief. 

The fourth argument is from man’s belief in immor- 
tality. For such a belief has existed among men in 
nearly every age and country, learned and ignorant, 
civilised and uncivilised. It was implied by the 
Neolithic men who buried food and weapons with 
their dead, and it was maintained by such philosophers 
as Socrates and Plato, and how are we to account for 
it? It cannot have arisen from experience ; and the 
attempts to explain it as due to the desire which men 
have for immortality, or to someone occasionally 
dreaming that he sees a departed friend, are quite in- 
adequate. Desire is not conviction, and dreams are 
notoriously untrustworthy. They might account for 
an individual here and there entertaining this belief, 
but not for mankind always and everywhere doing so. 

The belief, then, seems intuitive and an inherent 
part of human nature; though, like other intuitive 
beliefs, such as that of right and wrong, it is more 
fully developed in some nations than in others, and 
may sometimes be entirely absent. What, however, 
makes it almost certain that it is intuitive is, that 
nothing but such a belief could have. been strong 
enough to withstand the apparent contradiction 
afforded by every grave. And we may ask, is it likely 
that God should have implanted such a strange belief 
in man if it were erroneous ? 


I04 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI. 


These, then, are the four great arguments in favour 
of man’s immortality—that derived from his unique 
position, his unjust treatment in this world, his vast 
capabilities, and his inherent belief. And not one of 
them applies to animals; so the common objection, 
that if man is immortal, animals must be so too, is 
quite untenable. 

(5.) Counter-arguments. 

On the other hand, the great and only important 
argument against man’s immortality is that his spirit 
seems to be inseparably connected with his body. As 
far as we can judge, it is born with the body, it often 
inherits the moral character of its parents, just as the 
body inherits bodily diseases, it certainly develops and 
matures with the body, and in most cases it seems to 
gradually decay with the body, and therefore it is 
inferred the two perish together. 

But this does not follow; for, as was shown in a 
previous chapter, our memory alone proves that we 
have something immaterial which survives in spite of 


everything material changing ; and therefore it is not — 


unlikely that this immaterial something (our spirit) 
may survive the still greater change at death. The 


body would thus be like the instrument of the spirit, 


by which it manifests itself in the outer world; and 
hence, if the instrument gets out of order, its manifesta- 
tions will become confused, but without implying that 
the spirit itself is so. In the same way, if we shut up 
a clerk in a telegraph office, as soon as his instruments 
get out of order, the messages he sends, which are his 
only means of communicating with the outer world, 


~ 


a“ * 


REVELATION. 105 


will become confused, and finally cease, but without 
implying that there is anything wrong with the clerk 
himself. And this is confirmed by the fact that 
Instances are known in which a man’s intellect and 
will have remained quite vigorous all through a mortal 
sickness, and up to the very moment of death: so 
that the gradual decay of the body does not neces- 
sarily involve that of the mind and spirit. ’ 

On the whole, then, this is not an insuperable diffi- 
culty ; while the previous arguments render the idea 
of a future life distinctly probable. And this has, of 
course, a most important bearing on our next question ; 
indeed, it is scarcely too much to say that the proba- 
bility of a revelation depends on that of a future life. 
For if death ends all, man’s existence is so short that 
a revelation can scarcely be thought probable ; but if 
man is to live for ever, the case is very different. 

(B.) THE PROBABILITY OF A REVELATION. 

Now (assuming man to be immortal) a revelation, 
from whichever side we regard it, appears to be some- 

‘What probable. For God is a Being, Who seems likely to 
give a revelation; and man is a being pre-eminently 
suited to receive one; so we will consider these points 
first, and then the chief objections to a revelation. 

(1.) From God's character. 

Now since God is a Personal and Moral Being, Who 
takes an interest in man’s welfare, we may infer that, 
if a revelation were beneficial to man, as it probably 
would be, it would be in harmony with God’s character 
to confer it. And when we add to this the fact that 
God is not only beneficent but righteous, and appar- 


106 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI. 


ently wishes to train and develop man’s character so 
that he may be righteous also, and this with the idea 
of his living in some future state, then a revelation 
cannot be thought to be at all improbable. 

Moreover, as we have shown, man to some extent 
resembles God. Like Him, he is a personal and moral 
being, and, as far as we know scientifically, the only 
other being in the universe who is either personal or 
moral, so that he may be appropriately called a child 
of God. And.God seems to care for his welfare, just 
as a human father would care for the welfare of his 
children. And it is certainly probable, if a human 
father loved his children, that he would wish to hold 
some intercourse with them. And if we are in any 
sense God’s children, and He really cares for our 
welfare, is it not likely that He would do the same ? 

Some would even push the argument further, and 
say that it seems unlikely for God to create a race of 
personal beings without holding some intercourse with 
them ; in the same way that it would be unlikely for 
a man to paint a picture without looking at it, or to 
arrange a concert without listening to it. For a per- 
sonal being seems to differ from all else in this very 
point, that he is able to hold intercourse with other 
personal beings; it is, so to speak, one of his dis- 
tinguishing features, and therefore as God has created 
such beings, it seems only natural that He should hold 
some intercourse with them. | 

And if we admit this, the whole idea of Evolution 
would tend to show that during the long period of 
man’s infancy (what we now call paleolithic and 


REVELATION. I0O7 


neolithic times), when man was imperfect in every 
other respect, this intercourse would also be of the 
most imperfect and elementary kind. It would thus 
correspond to what we now call Natural Theology in 
its simplest form, though it is doubtful whether at 
that early age even the truths of Natural Theology 
could have been discovered by man’s reason alone, 
without being in some way revealed by God. And 
then when man became sufficiently advanced to 
appreciate it, and to be able to hand it on accurately ,— 
and this would require the use of writing, and must 
therefore have been comparatively late in his history— 
some definite Revelation might be given. And this 
again might become more and more perfect, as man 
himself became more perfect. At all events, if this 
were the case, it would be in accord with God’s methods 
in nature ; and therefore God’s character, so far as we 
have any means of judging of it, seems in favour of His 
making some Revelation—and that a progressive 
Revelation—to man. 

(2.) From man’s character. 

Passing on now to man’s character, it must be 
noticed that he has been given a nature exactly fitted 
to receive a revelation. This can scarcely be dis- 
_ puted, for religion of some kind is, and always has 
been, practically universal ; and (if we disregard the 
prehistoric times, as to which we have not sufficient 
_ information) nearly all important religions have rested 
on real or pretended revelations from God, and have 
been accepted in “consequence. Natural Theology 
alone, however noble its teaching, has never been able 


108 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI. 


to influence the masses. It exists chiefly in books, 
and the actual nature of man has everywhere led him 
to seek for, demand, and, if need be, imagine a revela- 
tion from God. Nor is this surprising when we 
examine his nature in detail. 

For, in the first place, man’s mental chat 
would enable him to understand and appreciate a 
revelation if one were given him, while his moral 
character would enable him to profit by it. For 
man is not a mere machine, or a mere animal; he 
possesses a known freedom of action. And therefore 
if God tells him what He wishes him to do, man can, 
if he chooses, do it. And since, as already shown, 
God seems to value man’s conduct, a revelation which 
would influence him to act right, and yet without 
forcing him, and thereby destroying his freedom, and 
making it impossible for him to act either right or 
wrong, is certainly not improbable. And that the 
knowledge alleged to be given by revelation might 
influence him in this way cannot be denied; for, as 
a matter of fact, such knowledge, either real or pre- 
tended, has had precisely this effect on millions of 
men. 

But more than this, not only can man understand 
and profit by a revelation, but he earnestly desires 
it. A thoughtful man cannot help wishing to know 
why he is placed in this world ; why he is given free 


will ; how he is meant to use his freedom ; and what © 


future, if any, is in store for him hereafter : in short, 


what was God’s object in creating him. It seems 


of all knowledge to be the highest, the noblest, the 


' 
a 
, 
“ 


REVELATION. _ 109 


most worth knowing. And therefore as this result 
of man’s nature was not only brought about by 
God, but must have been foreknown, and intended 
by Him, it is not improbable that He should satisfy 
this craving of His own creating ; more especially as it 
cannot be satisfied in any other way, for the knowledge 
is by hypothesis superhuman, and therefore out of 
man’s own reach. And it may be added, the more we 
realise this, and feel that God is Unknowable, in the 
sense that we can gain no satisfactory knowledge 
about Him by human science and reasoning, so much 
the more likely does it seem that He should give us 
such knowledge by revelation. 

And all this is still further strengthened when we 
consider man’s unique position to which we have 
already alluded. For if we admit that the creation and 
perfecting of man is the chief object the Creator had in 
view for so many thousands of years, it does not seem 
unlikely that He might wish to hold some communica- 
tion with him. In fact, as the whole of nature evi- 
dences design or purpose; and as man occupies a 
special place in nature; we may fairly conclude that 
God has some special purpose in regard to man, and, for 
all we know, may have something special to tell him 
about it. 

We conclude then that man’s mental and moral 
character, and the unique position he occupies on this 
earth, is a strong argument in favour of his receiving 
some revelation from God. 

(3.) Two objections. 

But now for the other side. There are two chief 


IIO THE TRUTH: OF, CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VI: 


objections to a revelation. The first is on the ground 
of injustice ; since any revelation, it is said, would imply 
a partiality to the men or nation to whom it was given, 
and would therefore be unjust to the rest of mankind. 
But this is quite untenable, for God’s other benefits are 
not bestowed impartially. On the contrary, pleasure 
and pain, good and evil, are never equally distributed 
in this world. Partiality and apparent favouritism 
is the rule everywhere, and this without any seeming 
merit or demerit on the part of the men concerned... 
Moreover, the advantages of a revelation may not 
concern this world only; and all who believe in a 
future life are convinced of God’s equity, and that 
men will only be judged according to the knowledge of 
God’s Will which they possessed, or might have pos- 
sessed had they chosen, and not according to any higher 
standard which was out of their reach. 

The other and more important objection is, that if 
God gave a revelation at all, it would be absolutely 

convincing. Everything that God does He does well ; 
and we cannot, it is urged, imagine His making a 
revelation to man, and yet doing it so imperfectly as 
to leave men in doubt as to whether He had done it 
ornot. For this would imply that He either could not, 
or would not, make the evidence sufficient to ensure 
conviction, neither of which is credible. 

Now, although all this seems very probable, a 
moment's reflection will show that it is not conclusive ; 
for exactly the same may be said in regard to the wine 
of Natural Religion. Is it likely, for instance, that 
God should create free and responsible men, and yet. 


REVELATION. ‘la 


give them such insufficient evidence about it, that while 
many are fully convinced, others deny not only their 
own freedom and responsibility, but the very existence 
of the God Who made them? And yet He has done 
so. And therefore there is nothing improbable in 
the evidence for a revelation, if one were given, being 
of a similar character. 

Indeed, there is much to be said in favour of its being 
so, since in most other matters man is left a free 
choice. He is often able to find out how he ought to 
think and how he ought to act, but he is not forced to 
do either. And God may have wished that the same 
rule should be followed in regard to a revelation, and 
that man should be left free to believe it or not, just 
as he is left free to act on it or not if he does believe 
it, and just as he is left free to choose right or wrong 
in other cases. And therefore we cannot say that no 
revelation can come from God unless the evidence for 
it be overwhelming. It would doubtless be sufficient 
to convince a man if he took the trouble to examine it 
carefully ; only it need not be such as to compel con- 
viction. What kind of evidence we may expect will 
be considered in the next chapter. 

Neither of these objections, then, can be maintained, 
and we are forced back to the conclusion that, provided 
man is immortal, a revelation seems for several reasons 
to be somewhat probable. To put it shortly, if God 
is good and really cares for man’s welfare, it seems 
unlikely that He should withhold from him that know- 
ledge which is the highest, the noblest, and the most 
longed after ;—the knowledge of Himself. While, if 


II2 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. vi. 


man is really a free and immortal being, occupying a 
unique position in the world, and intended to live for 
ever, it seems unlikely that he should be told nothing, 
and therefore know nothing, as to why he was created 
or what is his future destiny. Thus when we consider 
both God’s character and man’s character, it seems on 
the whole to be somewhat probable, that God would 
make some revelation to man, telling him how he 
ought to use his freedom in this world, and possibly 
what future is in store for him hereafter. 


- 
* 


CHAPTER VII. 


THAT THEREFORE A MIRACULOUS REVELATION [5S 
CREDIBLE. 


A Divine messenger would probably have credentials. 


(4.) SUPERHUMAN SIGNs. 


These include superhuman knowledge, afterwards verified 
(such as prophecy), and superhuman coincidences ; and 
there is nothing incredible in either. 


(B.) SUPERNATURAL Siens, or Evidential Miracles. 


These are ‘ marvels specially worked by God as signs to 
attest a revelation.’ This definition is threefold, re- 
ferring to their outward aspect, cause, and purpose. 

(1.) As Marvels : though they appear to be contrary to 
experience, they are not really so, for we have no 
experience of the proper kind to refer to. 

(2.) As Special Works of God : they only interfere with the 
uniformity of nature in the same way that human 
works interfere with it. 

(3.) And as Signs ;: there is nothing to show that they are 
inconsistent with God’s Character. Conclusion. 


WE decided in the last chapter that it was probable 
that God might make some revelation to man, that 


Is to say, to certain men, for them to make known 
to others. Now, it would obviously be desirable that 


these men should have some means of showing that 

the knowledge had come from God and not from them- 

Selves. It is not meant that this accompanying 
113 8 


II4 ~ THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


evidence is in any way necessary to the revelation, . 
but merely that it is somewhat probable. In other 
words, if God sends a message to man, it is somewhat 
probable that the messenger would have credentials. 
And this is especially so when we remember that men 
have often appeared in the world’s history who pro- 
fessed to have a revelation from God, and have misled 
mankind in consequence. Is it not probable, then, 
that if God really did give a revelation, He would take 
care that His true messengers should have credentials 
which would distinguish them from the impostors ? 

These credentials, then, or signs, must obviously be 
such as could not be forged by man; and must therefore 
of necessity be superhuman, if not supernatural. So 
we may divide them into these two classes; and we 
have now to consider whether such signs are credible. 
By this we mean something more than merely possible ; 
for the possibility of miracles follows at once from the 
existence of God. But are they credible? is there, 
that is, at least a very slight probability of their 
occurrence ? 

(A.) SUPERHUMAN SIGNS. 

These include, to begin with, superhuman knowledge, 
which can afterwards be verified, such as prophecy. 
And there is no difficulty here, provided we admit a 
revelation at all. The only possible objection refers 
to prophecies regarding human conduct: which it 
may be said would interfere with man’s freedom. 
But this is only part of the more general objection 
that any foreknowledge on God’s part would interfere 
with man’s freedom, which we have already considered ° 


MIRACLES. I15 


in Chapter II.; and there is no special difficulty in 
regard to prophecies. In every case, as said before, 
God merely foreknows the use man will make of his 
freedom. And therefore the event will not occur 
because it was foretold, but rather it was foretold 
because God knew that it would occur. 

Superhuman coincidences form another, and very 
important class of superhuman signs. In these a man’s 
acts or sayings are attested by natural events coinciding 
with them in a remarkable manner. For example, 
Suppose a prophet claimed to have a revelation from 
God, and, as a proof of this, invited the people to 
witness a sacrifice on a cloudless day. He then killed 
an animal, and placed it on an altar of stones, but 
put no fire under it, and even threw water over it. 
Suddenly, however, a heavy thunderstorm arose, and 


_the sacrifice was struck by lightning. Now the thun- 


derstorm might have arisen and the lightning might 
have struck on that particular spot, in strict accord- 
ance with natural laws ; and yet the coincidence of this 
occurring just when and where the prophet wanted it, 
would tend strongly to show that God, Who must 
have foreknown and designed the coincidence, meant 
to confirm what the prophet said. 

Or, to put the argument in other words, the lightning 
would seem to have struck the sacrifice on purpose ; 
and therefore such events have been popularly de- 
scribed as natural forces acting rationally. Of course, 
as a rule, the forces of nature do not act rationally. 
A falling meteorite, for instance, does not go a yard 
out of its way to kill anyone or to spare him. Man, 

8—2 


T16 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, VII. 


on the other hand, does act rationally. His acts are 
directed for a purpose, and thus evidence design. 
And, in the events we are considering, the forces of 
nature seem also to act with a purpose, and this raises 
a strong presumption that the Author of these forces 
was really acting with this purpose. In short, the. 
events seem to have been not only superhuman, but 
designed coincidences. 3 

And they present no difficulty whatever from a 
scientific point of view, as they are part of the ordinary 
course of nature. And God might have arranged at 
the origin of the universe, or subsequently, so as to bring 
about the events just when and where He wanted them 
to attest any human acts or sayings, the foreknowledge 
of which He also possessed. Of course, the value of 
such coincidences varies greatly according to whether 
the event is of a usual or unusual character. In the 
latter case, more especially if the event is very unusual 
or the coincidence very striking, they are popularly 
called miracles. And they may have considerable 
value, though there is always a slight chance of the 
agreement being, as we might say, accidental. 

(B.) SUPERNATURAL SIGNS. 

We pass on now to supernatural signs or Evidential 
Miracles in the strict sense, which we will define as 
marvels specially worked by God as signs to attest a 
revelation. This definition has, of course, been framed 
to suit the miracles recorded in the Bible, and it is 
really threefold. In the first place, the miracle is 
described as to its outward aspect. It is a marvel— 
that is to say, itis a strange and unusual event, which 


MIRACLES, 117 


we cannot account for, and which thus attracts atten- 


_ tion. Secondly, it is described as to its cause. This 


marvel is said to have been specially worked by God— 
that is to say, by some action on His part different 
from His usual action in nature. While, lastly, it is 
described as to its purpose , it is a marvel worked by 
God as a sign to attest a revelation. | 

The first of these aspects is expressed in the Old 
Testament by’ the word wonder, the second by such 
phrases as God’s mighty hand or outstretched arm, and 
the third by the word sign ; all these terms being often 
used together. While in the New Testament the 
words used are wonders, mighty works, and signs, which 
again exactly correspond to these three aspects of the 
miracles. They are, however, never called in the New 
Testament (and very seldom in the Old) wonders alone, 


_ though they are called signs alone, and mighty works 


alone. 

And it should be noticed these aspects are not chosen 
arbitrarily, since other events can and ought to be 
looked at in the same way, not as mere facts, but also 
with reference to their alleged cause and purpose. 
And to show the great importance of this, we will 
consider an event from recent history ; and select the 
well-known example of the Mont Cenis Tunnel. 

Suppose, then, that anyone heard of this as a marvel 
only, the cause and purpose being left out of account. 
Suppose, that is, he heard that a hollow straight 
cavity of uniform size, and over seven miles long, had 
been formed under a range of mountains: and that it 

1 E.g., Deut. 6,22 ;.7. 19-5 L152 


118 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIL. | 


had begun as two cavities, one from each end, which 
after years of growth, had exactly met in the middle. 
He would at once pronounce the event incredible, for 
the cavity presents features utterly unlike all natural 
cavities. 

But now suppose the next point, as to its cause, to 
be introduced. It is said to be something more than 
a natural cavity, and to be the work of man. All pre- 
vious difficulties would now vanish, but fresh ones 
would arise ; for numbers of men must have laboured ~ 
together for years to excavate such a cavity, and from 
what we know of human nature, men will only thus 
combine for commercial or profitable ends, and not 
for boring holes through mountains ; so that the event 
is still practically incredible. 

But now suppose the last point of purpose to be 
introduced. It is said that this is not a mere useless 
hole bored through a mountain ; but a hole bored for a 
particular purpose; it is, in fact, a railway tunnel. 
Then all difficulties as to its credibility would dis- 
appear. Of course, whether we believe the tunnel was 
actually made depends upon what evidence we have; 
but it is clear that when we consider the cause by 
which, and the purpose for which, it is alleged to have 
been made, there is nothing incredible about it. 

Now a similar method must be adopted in regard to 
Fvidential Miracles. They must not be regarded 
simply as marvels (and, as just said, the New Testa- 
ment writers never so regard them), but as marvels 
said to have been brought about by an adequate cause, 
and for a sufficient purpose. And it is just these 


MIRACLES. 11g 


elements of cause and purpose which may make the 
marvels credible. And each is equally important ; for 
a miracle without a sufficient purpose would be morally 
incredible, just as one without a sufficient cause would 
be mentally so. We will now consider these points in 
turn. 

(1.) Miracles as marvels. 

The first aspect of evidential miracles is that of 
marvels. As such, they are events which seem to be 
contrary to our expertence—contrary, that is, to what 
our experience of apparently similar events would lead 
us to expect. Suppose, for instance, it were stated 
that on one occasion three men were thrown into a 
furnace, but instead of being burnt to death they 
walked about, and in a few minutes came out alive 
and unhurt. 

Such a marvel would be contrary to our experience, 
and that it would be therefore very improbable is 
obvious. But is this improbability sufficient in all 
cases to make the event incredible, no matter what 
testimony there may be in its favour? Hume’s argu- 
ment that it is sufficient is well known. He says that 
we can only judge of the probability of anything, 
whether it be the occurrence of an event or the truthful- . 
ness of the narrator, by experience ; and that as it is 
contrary to experience for miracles to be true, but not 


contrary to experience for testimony to be false, the 


balance of probability must always be against the 
miracle. 

But of course this reasoning, if true, must apply to 
all alleged events which are contrary to experience. 


I20 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


And yet such events are not only credible, but have 
occurred by the thousand. Let us take a single ex- 
ample. Everyone has had some experience as to how 
far it is possible to hear the human voice distinctly, 
and till recent years this has invariably fixed the limit 
at a few hundred yards. Now, suppose anyone was 
told for the first time that it was possible to speak 
right across England, he would justly say that it was 
utterly contrary to experience ; but ought he to add 
that it was therefore incredible ? 

From this it is clear that there must be some flaw 
in Hume’s argument. And on examination this is 
easily discovered. For the argument regards the event 
only as a marvel, and without reference to tts alleged 
cause. But we have no right to leave this out of 
account, nor do we in practice. When anyone first 
hears of a marvel, he does not merely compare it with 
his previous experience, and then come to a decision : 
in which case, as Hume supposes, it might be always 
against the marvel; but he first inquires how, and 
under what circumstances, is this strange event said 
to have been brought about. For if any cause is 
alleged to have been at work of the influence of which 
he knows nothing, then he has no experience of the 
proper kind to appeal to. There is the testimony in 
favour of the event as before ; and if he disbelieves it, 
he does so, not because it is contrary to his experience, 
but because he thinks the supposed cause either did 
not exist, or would not have had the effect asserted. 

A reference to the previous example will make this 
quite plain. When the man first heard of persons 


MIRACLES. I21 


talking across England, instead of at once declaring 
it incredible, he, would, if a reasonable man, inquire 
as to the cause of this. He would then be told that a 
Wire was stretched across England with an instrument 
called a telephone at each end. Now, as to the possi- 
bility or adequacy of such a contrivance he might 
doubt a good deal; but one thing would be quite 
clear, that this was a case to which his experience, 
however large, did not apply. The instant the wire 
was mentioned, whether he believed it or not, that 
instant the event was taken out of the range of his 
experience altogether. 

This, then, is the explanation of Hume’s argument. 
So long as a marvel, contrary to experience, is regarded 
only as a marvel, the probability must be always against 
its truth. But if we inquire as to the agency by which 
it was brought about, and find that some special cause 
is alleged, as to the influence of which we are ignorant, 
then the argument is no longer applicable. We have 
simply no experience of the proper kind to appeal to. 

Now this is precisely the case with regard to evi- 
dential miracles. As marvels they seem contrary to 
experience ; but they claim to have a special cause, to 
be specially worked by God—that is to say, by some 
action on His part different from His usual action 
in nature ; and of the influence of this cause we have 
no experience whatever. We may, of course, deny 
its existence or doubt its adequacy ; but the argument, 
as contrary to experience, vanishes. 

It is clear then that the fact of evidential miracles 
seeming to be contrary to experience is no reason for 


I22 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


disbelieving them, though it might be a reason for 
disbelieving other alleged marvels, because they claim 
to have a special cause wherewith to account for this 
special character. So we have now to examine whether 
this special cause really existed—that is to Say, we pass 
on to the second aspect of the miracles ; our conclusion 
thus far being that they are credible as marvels, if it 
be credible that they were spectrally worked by God. 

(2.) Miracles as special works of God. ? 

Now, any special action on God’s part is often 
thought to present great difficulties, as interfering 
with the uniformity of nature. But, as we shall see, 
it would only interfere with it in the Same way that 
human action interferes with it. Neither of them 
violates the laws of nature, though both are able to 
bring about results which nature of itself could not 
have brought about. 

In the case of human action this is quite obvious. 
Suppose, for example, a clock with an iron pendulum 
is placed on a table and keeps perfect time. Suddenly, 
without anyone touching it, it begins to gain rapidly, 
and then, after an hour or so, goes on as before. To 
anyone unacquainted with the cause, this would 
appear a marvel : and might even be thought incredible, 
as (assuming the clock to be properly constructed) 
it would seem to imply some alteration in the laws of 
motion, or the force of gravity. And yet we know 
a man can easily produce such a marvel by simply 
holding a magnet under the table. The disturbing 
cause, it will be noticed, was not really the magnet, | 
which always acts according to law; nor the hand 


MIRACLES. 123 


which held it; but the action of the human will on 
matter. This took place in the man’s brain, and 
gave a particular direction to some nerve-force, which 
enabled the man to move his hand, and hence the 
magnet. Thus we may say the marvel was produced by 
natural means supernaturally applied ; for the magnet 
was undoubtedly a natural means, and yet nature of 
itself would never have used it in the way described. 

Now, evidential miracles claim to have been pro- 
duced in a somewhat similar, though to us unknown, 
manner by the action of God’s Will on matter, that is 
to say, by natural means supernaturally applied ; and, 
if so, their credibility under this head must be admitted. 
For we know that God has the power of acting on 
matter, and that He used it once in originating the 
universe, so He might use it again if He thought 
fit. Indeed, the creation seems the greatest of all 
miracles, and of itself renders any other. credible. 
Moreover, God’s knowledge of the laws of nature is 
complete, whereas man’s is only partial. As, then, 
man, with his limited power over nature and partial 
knowledge of its laws, can produce marvels out of 
nature’s ordinary course, and yet without violating 
any of its laws ; still more can God, Who has complete 
power over nature, and complete knowledge of its 
laws. For to deny this would be to deny to God the 

power which we concede to man. 
And if it be objected that man can only do this 
through his having a material body, the answer is 
obvious. The action of the will on matter takes place 
in the brain, and the body is only a natural link in the 


I24 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


chain of cause and effect, and so does not alter the 
analogy. No doubt we cannot imagine how God can 
exert His Will over matter, but neither can we imagine 
how we can do it ourselves. The difficulty is as great 
in the one case as in the other. 

From this it is clear that evidential miracles do not 
necessitate God's violating natural laws. And though 
at first one might be inclined to dispute this with 
regard to individual miracles, the statement is quite 
justified, provided we make due allowance for our own 
ignorance. Take, for example, the supposed case of the 
men in the furnace. This might be thought to violate 
the laws of heat, which necessitate a man’s body 
being consumed in such circumstances. But even if 
we admit that a man’s body must be kept below a 
certain temperature to sustain life, we cannot say 
that this was impossible in the furnace. For extreme 
heat, and even extreme cold, may be very close to- 
gether, as is shown by the well-known experiment of 
freezing mercury inside a red-hot crucible. As a 
mere marvel this is quite as wonderful as the men in 
the furnace; and an ignorant man would probably 
pronounce both to be equally incredible. Of course, 
in all marvels produced by man, we know the special 
cause at work, and can therefore repeat it: but this 
does not justify us in saying that in a miracle, merely 
perhaps because we do not know it, the laws of nature 
must be violated. 

Or, again, to take another example, suppose it was 
said that on one occasion a few loaves of bread were - 
miraculously increased so as to feed some thousands of 


MIRACLES. REZ 


persons ; could we say that this must have violated 
natural laws? Certainly not, for bread is composed 
of the elements carbon, oxygen, etc., and these were 
in abundance all around. And though we only know 
one way in which they can be formed into bread, which 
is through the agency of a living plant, we cannot say 
that this is the only method. Indeed, there is nothing 
incredible in organic substances, including bread, 
being made in the laboratory some day. Such illus- 
trations do not of course show how God worked the 
miracles ; they merely prevent us from saying that He 
could not have worked them, had He chosen, without 
violating natural laws. 

It will thus be noticed that evidential miracles do not 
claim to be brought about by any action on God’s part 
different in kind from how ordinary events are brought 
about, for each is produced in conformity with natural 
laws, and each is due originally to the action of God’s 
Will on matter. Only, in the one case there are or may 
be an immense number of intermediate natural links, 
and in the other comparatively few. And hence it 
follows that all events are in a certain sense both 
natural and supernatural. They are natural as regards 
the mode in which they are brought about, and super- 
natural as regards the First Cause which brings them 
about ; so that the cause of the natural, if we go far 
enough back, is always supernatural. 

And very possibly we need not go back at all; for 
there is much to be said in favour of the theory of 
God’s immanence in nature, as it is usually called, 
but which would perhaps be better described as 


126 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


natures immanence in God ;1 and which means that all 
natural forces are due to the present and immediate 
action of God’s Will. And this seems to have been the 
view taken by the writers of the Old Testament, for 
all natural events, even the formation of clouds and 
rain, and the growth of grass, are ascribed to God 
in the same way that miracles are.2_ They did not 
therefore recognise any sharp distinction between the 
natural and the supernatural, but looked upon them 
all as God’s works. In other words, this Divine 
immanence in nature, which modern science is beginning 
to realise, seems to have been known instinctively to 
the Jews. And if this theory is correct, it greatly 
lessens the difficulty as to miracles. For then there 
would be no interference with nature at all, God would 
be working there all the time, only in a miracle He 
would not be working in exactly the same way as in 
ordinary events. 

But in any case there is, as we have shown, nothing 
incredible in the way in which evidential miracles are 
said to be caused, provided it is credible that God 
should wish to use His power over nature in the 
assumed manner ; for natural forces are anyhow His 
servants, not His masters. And this leads us to the 
third aspect of the miracles ; for whether God would 
wish to act in a certain way depends of course on what 
purpose He had in doing so. 

(3.) Miracles as signs. 

Now the purpose for which evidential miracles are 
said to be worked is as signs to attest a revelation. And 


1 Acts~17, 283° Gok. his. 2 E.g., Ps. 104, 147. 


MIRACLES. 127 


therefore, as we have already shown that it is some- 
what probable that God would make a revelation, we 
have now only to inquire whether evidential miracles 
are suitable means for attesting it. And they appear 
to be the most suitable means possible ; for they would 
both attract men’s attention to the revelation, and 
also convince them of its superhuman character; and 
these are precisely the two points required. While 
their extraordinary character in the physical world 
would correspond with that of revelation itself in the 
mental world, which has been called a kind of mental 
miracle. 

It may still be objected that God’s character, as 
indicated by nature, is Unchangeable ; and that there- 
fore it is most improbable that He would at times act 
in a special manner with regard to natural events. 
And the more nature is studied the stronger does this 
objection appear, since there are thousands of cases, 
such as storms and earthquakes, when it seems to us 
that a slight interference with the course of nature 
would be highly beneficial to man, and yet it never 
occurs. Or the objection may be otherwise expressed 
by saying that a miracle would reflect on either the 
Wisdom or the Power of God, since, if All-Wise, He 
would have foreseen the occasion, and if All-Powerful, 
He would have provided for it ; so that any subsequent 
interference with nature is something like having to 
remedy a fault. 

This is no doubt the most serious obiection to 
miracles, but it is by no means insuperable. In the 
first place, it rests to a great extent on our ignorance, 


128 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


or at most partial knowledge, of God’s character. For 
had we only our own sense of the fitness of things to 
judge by, we should never have thought that God 
would have created such a world as ours at all. The 
existence of evil, and especially that innocent men 
should suffer for guilty ones, are events we should 
have thought most unlikely ; and yet they occur every 
day. If, then, we are incompetent to decide how 
God would be likely to govern the world in an ordinary 
manner, still less can we say whether, under special 
circumstances, He might not deviate from this manner. 
And we must remember God is a Free Being, Who does 
not always act the same, even under the same circum- 
stances (Chapter I.) ; so there is nothing improbable 
in His acting differently under different circumstances. 
And as part of the world which God has made is free 
(ourselves for instance) different circumstances may 
certainly arise. 

Moreover, the objection is directly opposed to the 
analogy of the only other personal being we know of, 
which is man himself. A man'may, as a rule, act 
uniformly, and yet on some special occasion, and for 
some special reason, he may, and often does, act 
differently ; and why should not God do the same? In 
fact the only changelessness in a man which we could 
admire, would be a changelessness 1m moral char- 
acter, always and invariably acting right. And for all 
we know the changelessness of God may be only of 
such a kind, and this certainly would not prevent Him 
from acting in some special manner, for the attainment 
of some special purpose. 


MIRACLES. | 129 


Secondly, in the case before us, it is even probable 
that He would do so, since the chief object of the 
miracles could not have been obtained by the ordinary 
course of nature, though their immediate effects might 
have been. For example, instead of healing men 
miraculously, they might be healed naturally; but 
then there would be no evidence that the healer was 
sent by God, and was speaking in His name. In short, 
the messenger would be without credentials ; and, as 
we have already shown, this seems unlikely. 

Thirdly, though evidential miracles do not show 
God’s unchangeableness in the same manner as the 
unchanging course of nature, they are not inconsistent 
with it. For they are not asserted to be after-thoughts 


with God, but to have been planned from the very \ 


beginning. And if He foresaw that at certain periods 
in the world’s history events would arise which, in 
order to carry out His purpose, could be best dealt with 
in some special manner, and therefore determined that 
when these events arose He would deviate from His 
usual way of working, this would involve no incon- 
sistency or change on His part. 

Fourthly, there may be some other attributes of 
God which evidential miracles show, and which the 
ordinary course of nature does not show ; such as His 
condescension in giving them at all. One object of 
a revelation might be to convince man that God really 
cared for his happiness and valued his affections. And 
there is nothing unlikely in supposing that, to attest 
such a revelation as this, God might condescend to 
manifest Himself more after a human manner, and to 

9 


130 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VII. 


act, not with the uniformity of nature, but more as a 
man would act, in order that man might the more 
readily understand Him. 

While, lastly, we must remember that the whole of 
nature seems (as before said) to be only a means to an 
end, the end being the moral training of man. And 
if so, it is out of the question to think that 7m order to 
further this end—the very end for which nature itself 
exists—God might not, if He thought fit, interfere 
with nature, or modify the course of events. The 
scientific improbability of a miracle may thus be 
counterbalanced by its moral probability—t.e., by its 
being suitable for some moral purpose, such as attesting 
a revelation. And we may therefore answer the objec- 
tion in one sentence, God is All-Good, as well as All- 
Wise, and All-Powerful; and His Goodness might 
induce Him to use miracles, though by His Wisdom 
and Power He might have dispensed with them. 

We may now sum up the present argument. We 
showed that evidential miracles are credible both as 
marvels and as special works of God, if it be credible 
that they were brought about as signs to attest a revela- 
tion. And we have now shown that, on the supposition 
that God might make a revelation, which we have 
already admitted, there is nothing inconsistent with — 
His character as far as we know it, and therefore 
nothing in the slightest degree incredible, in His using 
evidential miracles, as one of the means of attesting its 
truth. Onthe whole, then, we conclude that a Miraculous 
Revelation is certainly credible. Whether one has ever 
been made will be discussed in the following chapters. — 


Ue AGT ET Xie Bea el 


THE JEWISH RELIGION. 


CHAP, VIII. THAT ITS ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY 
REVEALED. 
AA IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES. 
a3 xX. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES. 
3 XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO ATTESTED BY PROPHECIES. 
2 XII, THAT THEREFORE THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY 
TRUE. 


[31 o—2 


CHAPTER VIII. 


THAT ITS ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS 
DIVINELY REVEALED. 


(A.) THE Days oF CREATION. 


Some apparent difficulties ; but they disappear if the word 
Day is understood as a Representative Term, showing the 
insignificance of the time of creation in regard to God. 
Additional reasons for this view. 


(B.) THE PRINCIPLES OF CREATION. 


(1.) Its pure Monotheism ; admittedly true. 
(2.) Its gradual development ; admittedly true. 
(3.) Its method of development ; each stage being due toa 
creative force from God ; probably true. 
(C.) THE ORDER OF CREATION. 
.) The origin of the universe. 
(2.) The earliest state of the earth. 
(3.) Light created on first day. 
(4.) The Firmament, on second day. 
Oe agg ih teens } on third day. 
(6.) Vegetation, ; 
(7.) The Sun and Moon, on fourth day. 
(8.) Fishes and Birds, on fifth day. 
.) Land Animals, 
(10.) Man, 


(D.) CONCLUSION. 


} on sixth day. 


The accuracy of the narrative points to its having been 
Divinely revealed. 


Havine decided in the previous Part of this Essay 
on the Existence of God, and that it was credible 
133 


Ft | ae 


134 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIII. 


that He might make a miraculous Revelation to man ; 
we pass on now to the Jewish Religion, which (as well 
as the Christian Religion) actually claims to be such a 
Revelation. . 

And the first argument we have to consider in its 
favour is that afforded by the opening chapter of 
Genesis. It is urged that this account of the Creation, 
no matter when or by whom it was written, must have 
been Divinely revealed, since it contains a substantially 
correct account of events which could not have been 
otherwise known at the time. 

What then we have to examine is, whether this 
narrative is nearer the truth, as we now know it from 
geology and other sciences, than the unaided guesswork 
of a man ignorant of these sciences might be expected 
to be. Fortunately, in the ancient narratives of Baby- 
lonia, India, Persia, and elsewhere, we have abundant 
evidence as to how far from the truth such guesswork 
is likely to be. It is scarcely too much to say that they 
are one and all entirely false, except where they happen 
to agree with Genesis ; while the latter is of course quite 
free from their absurd and grotesque elements. 

And if we admit revelation at all, there is nothing © 
improbable in some account of the creation of the 
world having been revealed to man very early in his 
history, and being accurately preserved by the Jews, 
while only distorted versions of it occur among other 
nations. Or else it might have been revealed to the 
Jews in later times, when it would naturally have in- 
corporated the very small amount that was correct, — 
in the accounts already known to them. And in any 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. B35 


case, considering the common custom of worshipping 
the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could 
have been more suited for a first Revelation than the 
statement in simple language that all these were 
created by one supreme God. 

(A.) THe Days OF CREATION. 

And first we must consider somewhat carefully the 
meaning of the days of creation. Now, if the word 
day is used of a period of time, in Scripture as else- 
where, it has but two meanings—a period of twenty- 
four or of twelve hours. It is indeed often used in a 
vague indefinite sense as the day of judgment or the 
day of the Lord. But here there is no idea of duration, 
and we might just as well say the hour of judgment or 
the time of the Lord. In no case does the word day of 
itself denote a long period of time. And yet, on the 
other hand, ordinary days would have been impossible 
before the formation of the sun on the fourth day, and 
the writer must obviously have known this. Indeed, 
he implies it himself, since he expressly assigns the 
division of time into days and years to the sun. 

How then are we to reconcile all this? The only 
satisfactory solution is that the word day must be 
understood as a Representative Term, relating to God. 
And therefore, God’s days must be interpreted in the 
same manner as God’s eye or God’s hand, and this 
removes all difficulties. By a representative term is 
meant a term which is not, strictly speaking, true, but 
which represents the truth to man in such a way that 
he can to some extent understand it. For example, the 
phrase that God gained the victory by His own right 


136 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIIT. 


hand clearly means that He gained it not with the 
assistance of others, nor with the help of weapons, but 
simply by His own unaided inherent strength. It was 
such a victory as might 7m a man be described as gained 
by his own right hand. God’s acts are thus represented 
under the figure of those acts of men which most nearly 
correspond to them in character. And on the same 
principle we interpret the passage, The eyes of the Lord 
ave over the righteous, and Hts ears are open unto their 
prayers, and hundreds of others which occur all through | 
the Bible. We do not assign any new meaning to the 
actual words themselves, such as hands, eyes, and 
ears ; but we say that all such terms, when applied 
to God, are mere descriptions drawn from human 
analogies, which cannot be pressed literally. 

And in the present case it is extremely probable 
that the word day is to be understood in the same 
sense ; for representative terms abound all through the 
narrative. From God’s word of command calling forth 
light at the beginning to His rest at the-end, everyone 
must admit that the expressions used are not, strictly 
speaking, true, but merely represent the truth about 
God in a way which man can understand. We have 
hence no more right to suppose the six days to be 
literal days than to suppose that God literally spoke 
or literally rested. What we are to suppose is that 
God created all things in such periods of time as might B 
to man be most fitly represented by six days. Vast 
as the universe was, man was to regard it as being to 
God no more than a week’s work to himself. In short, 
the time of creation, however long in itself, was utterly 


— = 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 137 


insignificant in its relation to God ; to Him each stage 
was a mere day. 

Further, if need be, to support this view, we may 
notice three points. The first is that it is not a purely 
modern theory, made to reconcile the narrative with 
science ; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born about B.c. 20, 
who knew nothing of geology, ridicules the idea of 
the days of Genesis being literal, or representing any 
definite periods of time.! 

Secondly, the Israelites quite understood that 
human measures of time, when applied to God, were 
not to be taken literally. Thus we are told that a 
thousand years in His sight are but as yesterday ; 
and elsewhere we read, “‘ Hast thou eyes of flesh, or 
seest thou as man seeth? Are thy days as the 
days of man, or thy years as man’s days ?’’2 Here 
days and years are applied to God in precisely the 
same manner as eyes and seeing, which everyone admits 
are representative terms only. Nor is the Fourth 
Commandment, that in stx days the Lord made Heaven 
and earth, etc., in any way opposed to this view. For 
days are not the only things it mentions, but also 
work and rest. And none will deny that God’s work 
is different from man’s work, and His rest from man’s 
rest ; so why should not the days of His work be also 
different from the days of man’s work ? 

Lastly, there does not seem any reason why, if literal 
days were meant, a total of seven should have been 
selected, rather than eight or any larger number. For 


1 Works of Philo Judzus, Yonge’s translation, 1854, vol. i., p- 52. 
22P3,-00, 47 Job 10. 4, 5. 


138 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIII. 


if the Creator only rested tWenty-four hours, what did 
He do afterwards ? And if He continued to rest, would 
it not have been just as true to have selected a total of 
twelve days, and say that God worked for the first six 
and rested the second six ? On the other hand, if the 
days represent indefinite periods of time, the choice 
of seven is easily explained, since we are still in the 
seventh day or period, to which, be it remembered, no 
close, or evening, is assigned, and the Creator is still 
resting. And this is of course quite correct; for 
nothing has occurred since the appearance of man, 
which requires any fresh creative act. 

Any contradiction, then, between Genesis and 
geology as to the time of creation is plainly impossible ; 
for their teaching is of a different kind. The one tells 
us, or may tell us, the time of creation in regard to 
man, as measured by years and centuries ; the other 
tells us the insignificance of this time in regard to God. 
And therefore, as has been well said, there is only one ~ 
way in which the discoveries of science can affect this 
subject. By the help of science we may obtain a truer 
conception of the real dimensions and marvellous con- 
stitution of the universe, a truer idea of the enormous 
lapse of ages during which it was being elaborated to 
its present perfection ; thus obtaining also a truer idea 
of the eternal greatness of Him to whom the whole of 
this vast work seemed but the labour of a few days. 

(B.) THE PRINCIPLES OF CREATION. 

We pass on now to some general principles which 
are stated or implied in the narrative, and which are 
of great importance. 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 139 


(1.) Its pure Monotheism. 

And first as to its pure Monotheism. This alone 
renders it almost, if not quite, unique among similar 
narratives. According to the writer, the whole uni- 
verse, including sun, moon, and stars, was all due to 
one First Cause. That this is strictly correct we have 
‘ already shown in the earlier chapters of this Essay ; 
and it may seem obvious enough now, but was it 
equally so when the narrative was written ? Certainly 
not. For other ancient accounts are either Pan- 
theistic, and confuse God with the universe; or else 
Dualistic, and assume two eternal principles of good 
and evil; or else Polythetstic, and make the universe 
the work of several gods. The Jewish writer, on the 
other hand, has kept clear of all these theories ; and 
he is admittedly right and all the others wrong. 

(2.) Its gradual development. 

Next, it must be noticed that, according to Genesis, 
the creation of the world was on the system of gradual 
development. God did not create a perfect universe 
all at once, but slowly built it up step by step. At 
first the earth was waste and void, and only after it 
had passed through several stages did it become fully 
ordered and peopled. Moreover, at every step (with 
two exceptions, the firmament and man, noticed later 
on), God surveyed the work and pronounced it good. 
He seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excel- 
lence in each stage ; though it was not till the close of 
the whole woik that He found complete satisfaction, 
and pronounced it all very good. 

And here, again, the narrative seems quite correct. 


T40 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIII. 


For geology has shown conclusively that the formation 
and peopling of the earth was a gradual process, not 
accomplished all at once, but slowly step by step, 
through successive ages ; and also that those ages were 
of such magnitude and importance that we cannot 
regard them as mere preparations for man’s coming, 
but as having a beauty and excellence of their own. 
Thus, according to science, though man is the highest 
member of creation, and though all evolution has 
tended to him as its final result, yet there were many 
earlier stages which well deserved the epithet good. 
But we may ask, how did the writer of Genesis know 
all this ? 

(3.) Lts method of development. 

Now, how was this gradual development effected ? 
According to Genesis, the transition from each stage 
to the next was due to a word of command from God. 
This need not, of course, mean that certain words were 
audibly uttered, but that the kind of power God ex- 
erted could be least inadequately represented by the 
human word of command. The All-Mighty One had 
not to labour over His work, but could accomplish it 
all by a mere wora ; each stage being due to what we 
may call a special creative force. 

And once more science seems in agreement, for it_ 
is unable of itself to account for the first appearance 
of the various members of creation, such as plants, 
animals, and men. It is not, of course, disputed that 
these various stages were, or may have been, evolved 
from the previous ones, e.g., the living from the not- 
living, which Genesis itself suggests in the words and 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I41 


the earth brought forth grass ; and still more plainly 
when it speaks of the generations of the heaven and of 
the earth,’ the word generation clearly implying some 
kind of organic descent, or evolution. What is dis- 
puted is, that this evolution took place merely under 
the influence of natural development, and without the 
further influence of a new creative force. And con- 
sidering that all attempts to effect a similar transition 
now have failed hopelessly, it is not unreasonable to 
- suppose that there was some other and special cause 
at work then. 

Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes could 
have been otherwise effected. Take, for example, this 
very subject of the origin of life. As far as we know, 
the only natural mode in which life can begin is from 
a living parent, and yet there was a time when there 
were no living parents on this earth. How, then, could 
it originate, except by some process other than natural, 
t.¢e., supernatural ? Or, again, to take another instance, 
when the first free being, whether animal or man, 
appeared on this planet, a force totally different from 
all previous ones was introduced ; and no natural 
process can bridge over the gulf which separates 
natural forces from free forces, since the latter are in 
their essence supernatural. 

Anyhow, it must be admitted that a special creative 
force would adequately account for each of these steps 
in creation; and that science cannot account for them 
in any other way. In fact, science knows nothing as 
to what brought them about, and it therefore agrees, 

_ 1 Gen. 2, 4. 


142 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIII. 


as far as it can agree, with Genesis, which expressly 
assigns them to a Cause of which science could not 
possibly know anything. So here, as in other cases, 
the general principles of the narrative are either 
certainly or probably correct. 

(C.) THE ORDER OF CREATION. 

We pass on now to the detailed order of creation. 
It will be remembered that in Genesis, after describing 
the origin of the universe and the earliest state of the 
earth, there are eight acts of creation, two on the third 
day and two on the sixth ;-so we have altogether ten 
subjects to examine. 

(r.) The origin of the universe. 

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
earth.’ It is, I believe, admitted on all sides that the 
Hebrew word for created does not necessarily mean 
created out of nothing; indeed, it is often used in 
places where it cannot possibly have this meaning,? 
so that the eternal existence of matter, as it is called, 


is left an open question by Genesis. And as the term 


heaven and earth is the common. Hebrew one for the 
universe, little stress can be laid on heaven coming 
before earth. But if it means that the heaven was 
created first, it is almost certainly correct, as many 
suns and stars came into existence before our earth. 
Omitting, however, this doubtful point, it is clear 
from Genesis that the universe had an origin, and 
that this origin was due to God; and, as we have 
shown, science forces us to precisely the same con- 
clusion. 


152 .g., Ps0102,. 18% “Isae64,. 1046 bezel, 2130. 


1 
eee ee ee eo 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 143 


(2.) The earliest state of the earth. 

According to Genesis, taking the words in their 
obvious and natural sense, the earth was at first waste 
and void and in darkness, and apparently surrounded 
by the waters. And if we adopt the usual nebula 
theory, and refer this to the first period after it be- 
came a separate planet, and had cooled so as to be 
not self-luminous, the statements seem quite correct. 
For we know from geology that the earth was then 
waste and void as far as any form of life was concerned, 
while it was probably surrounded by a dense mass of 
watery vapours sufficient to produce darkness. Genesis 
then starts from the right starting-point, but again we 
_ must ask, how did the writer know this ? 

(3.) Light. 

The first step in the development of the earth was, 
we are told, the introduction of ight ; which in nature 
always includes heat. And this must obviously have 
come first, for on it depend all changes in temperature, 
the formation of winds, clouds, rain, and ocean cur- 
rents ; while it also supplies the physical power needed 
for the life of plants and animals; and therefore in 
placing ight as the first step, Genesis is certainly 
correct. 

Of course, the source of light at this early period was 
the remainder of the gaseous nebula from which our 
planet was thrown off ; so that it was diffused through 
an immense space, instead of being concentrated like 
that of our present sun; and probably only reached 
the earth through a thick belt of clouds and vapours. 
But still as it was all on one side of the revolving earth, 


144 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHaAP. vir. 


there would be the alternations of light and darkness, © 
which are alluded to in the narrative, and which were 
previously unknown. 

(4.) The firmament. 

The next step was the separation of the waters above 
(the clouds) from the waters below (the seas), and 
placing between them a firmament or expanse (see 
margin), 2.¢., the atmosphere. The idea that the writer 
thought this expanse meant a solid plane holding up 
the waters above (because it is perhaps derived from 
a word meaning firm or solid) is scarcely tenable. For 
the firmament was called ‘ Heaven,’ and the upper 
waters, above the ‘ heaven,’ must mean the sources 
from which the rain from heaven comes. And these 
sources are easily seen to be clouds, and no writer could 
have thought that a solid firmament intervened be- 
tween the clouds and the earth ; more especially as we 
read later on that birds are to fly in this firmament. 
And the omission, before noticed, to say that God saw 
that the firmament was good, is quite natural, if this 
means the (apparently) empty space separating the 
clouds from the seas ; but it is difficult to account for, 
if it means any material object, which would seem to 
require God’s approval like everything else. 

And this view is further confirmed by the symmetry 
of the narrative, for the six days are divided into two 
groups of three each, the first set being clearly a sort 
of preparation for the second. Thus we have light 
on the first day, and the light-giving bodies, the sun 
and moon, on the fourth day ; and we have land and 
vegetation on.the third day, and animals and men, 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I45 


who live on the land and feed on the vegetation, on 
thesixth day ; and therefore we should expect a similar 
agreement between the second and the fifth day. 
“Now on the fifth day we have fishes that live in the 
water, and birds that fly in the air ; and if the work of 
the second day was, as just explained, the formation 
of the water, and the air (i.e., the firmament), then, 
and only then, is the symmetry perfect. 

It may of course be objected to this view, that the 
sun and moon are said to have been set in the firma- 
ment, which is not, strictly speaking, correct if this 
means the atmosphere. But the writer could scarcely 
have meant it literally ; for anyone can see that they 
are not se¢ at all, in the sense of being fastened to any- 
thing, as the moon keeps changing its position relatively 
to the sun, just as a rainbow does, which is also said 
to be set in the cloud.t Nor are they literally in the 
firmament, for anyone can see that the clouds (i.e., 
the waters above the firmament) are not, as a matter 
of fact, on the other side of the sun and moon, but 
frequently come in front of them. It may also be 
added that the English word heaven has a similar 
vagueness, for we speak of the clouds of heaven and 
the stars of heaven. On the whole, then, there can 
be little doubt that the firmament, or expanse, means 
the atmosphere ; and the order in which this is placed 
after light and before plants and animals is obviously 
correct. 

(5.) The dry land. 

We now come to an important point, the first ap- 

1 Gen, 9. 13. 
10 


146 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, VIII. 


pearance of dry land. According to Genesis, there 
was not always dry land on the earth; the whole of 
it was originally covered by the waters. And turning 
to science, it seems probable that this was actually the 
case. The earth was originally surrounded by watery 
vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a kind 
of universal ocean. And then, when irregularities were 
caused in the surface, either by volcanic action or else 
by its contracting and crumpling up, the water would 
collect into the hollows, forming seas, and dry land 
would appear elsewhere. But how was it possible for 
the writer of Genesis to know all this? There is 
nothing in the present aspect of nature to suggest that 
there was once a time when there was no dry land ; 
and if it was a guess on his part, it was, to say the 
least, a very remarkable one. 

(6.) Vegetation. 

We next come to the introduction of life; which 
is placed in exactly its right position in the narrative. 
For vegetation requires four things: soil, aiy, water, 
and light including heat ; and these were precisely the 
four things which then existed. 

The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of grass, 
herbs, and frutt-trees ; and it seems to imply that these 
appeared simultaneously. But considering its general 
structure, which is that of a sequence of events, the 
other view, that they appeared successively, is at 
least tenable. This would mean that the vegetable 


life, which now began, gave rise to a long line of de- 


scendants, the three most important groups being 


specially mentioned. And the order in which these 


Ss 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I47 


come agrees well with geology; first gvass, which 
apparently means here seedless vegetation (crypto- 
gams), as seed is mentioned in regard to the other two, 
but omitted here; then herbs, probably cereals and 
vegetables ; and lastly, fruit-trees. However, little 
stress can be laid on this, as the meaning of the Hebrew 
words is somewhat uncertain. 

Before passing on, an apparent difficulty may be 
noticed, which is, that the series of plants and trees was 
not, as a matter of fact, complete before the following 
periods of creation. Some new species, for instance, 
were evolved long after the commencement of fishes 
and birds, and similarly some fishes and birds after the 
commencement of animals. But the difficulty is due 
to the fact that the various classes overlap to a large 
extent. And the order given in Genesis is far nearer 
the truth than any other order would be. Had the 
writer, for example, placed them fishes, birds, plants, 
animals ; or animals, fishes, birds, plants ; he would 
have been hopelessly wrong. As it is, by placing them 
plants, fishes, birds, animals, he is as near the truth as 
he can be, provided classes which really overlap have 
to be arranged in a consecutive narrative. 

(7.) The sun and moon. 

We next come to the formation of the sun and moon. 
The stars are also mentioned, but it is not said that 
they were made on the fourth day, and they are not 
alluded to in the opening command. Now, the alleged 
formation of the sun after that of light is undoubtedly 
the most striking point in the whole narrative, and ~ 
was long thought to be a difficulty. Various explana- 

| 10—2 


148 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIII. 


_ tions, more or less forced, were suggested ; but they are 
happily no longer required. For science has now 
proved to almost a certainty that the statement of 
Genesis is strictly correct. However strange it may 
seem at first sight, light did undoubtedly exist long 
before the sun. In other words, the gaseous matter 
forming the original nebula of our solar system was 
luminous long before it contracted into a body with 
a definite outline and emitting such an intense and 
concentrated light, as could be called a sun. 

And as a planet like the earth would cool and con- 
solidate much quicker than the central mass, vegetation 
might take place here before the gaseous nebula had 
become a sun. This latter point is disputed by many 
geologists, but our knowledge is scarcely sufficient to 
enable us to speak with confidence either way. Though 
in any case as the earth was originally surrounded by 
dense clouds, due to the evaporation from its watery 
surface, the sun would probably not shine on the earth 
(which is what Genesis refers to) till this evaporation 
was reduced, owing to the appearance of the dry land 
and vegetation. And therefore the formation of the 
sun after light is certainly correct, and its formation 
or at least its not shining on the earth till after the 
dry land, and vegetation, probably correct. 

And if it be urged that on this view the sun was not 
actually created on the fourth day, but had merely by 
that time sufficiently contracted to become a great light, 
and that Genesis ought to have implied this, the answer 
is obvious. It is precisely what Genesis has done. The 
original creation of the sun is described in verse 1 under 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. | 149 


the term Heaven, and when on the fourth day we are 
told that God made two great lights, a different word is 
used, which means appotnted rather than created, and is 
sometimes so translated.1. This exactly agrees with 
what we now know to be true. The sun was originally 
created (or evolved) as a nebulous mass, and not till 
long afterwards did it contract so as to become the 
great light which we see at present. 

Two objections have now to be considered. The 
first is, that the moon would consolidate before the 
earth, being smaller, and not after it like the sun. 
But when considered as lights, as they are in the 
narrative, it is quite correct to class the two together, 
since moonlight is only reflected sunlight ; and, there- 
fore, before the sun contracted so as to give outa 
powerful light, the moon could not have shone very 
brightly either. This is, of course, obvious to everyone 
now, but was it equally so when the narrative was 
written ? 

The second objection is, that according to Genesis, 
the earth seems to be the centre of everything, and even 
the sun, or at all events its light, is represented as 
existing solely for the sake of lighting the earth. Now 
no doubt the narrative takes for granted that the earth 
is the most important member of the solar system ; but 
no objection caa be taken to this, provided none of the 
statements are false, since as far as man is concerned— 
and the narrative was written for him alone—the earth 
undoubtedly is the most important member. And then 
as to the object of sunlight : we know that it is of use 

i B.g., 1 sam. 12. 6. 


I50 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. VIII. 


to the inhabitants of this planet, and we do not know 
that it serves any other useful purpose whatever. 
These, however, are but minor matters; the im- 


portant point, as before said, is that the writer of 


Genesis places the formation of the sun after that of 
light. This must have appeared when it was written, 


and for thousands of years afterwards, an obvious 


absurdity, since everyone could see that the sun was 
the source of light. We now know that it is correct. 
But is it likely that the writer of Genesis had any 
human means of knowing this; or is it likely that, 
without such means, he should have made such a 
wonderfully lucky guess? It seems hard to exag- 
gerate the great improbability of either alternative; 
and yet there is no other, unless we admit that the 
knowledge was divinely revealed. 
 (8.) Fishes and birds. 

We next come to the introduction of fishes and birds. 


It is not clear whether the narrative means that they | 


appeared simultaneously or successively, though here, 
as in other cases, the latter is the more probable. And 
it is needless to point out that science entirely agrees in 
thus placing fishes before birds and also in placing both 
of these after plants. Indeed, this latter point must 
be obvious to every naturalist, since the food of all 
animals is derived, either directly or indirectly, from 
the vegetable world. And Genesis is equally correct 


in emphasising the great abundance of marine life at _ 


this period, though, as far as we know, had the same 


been said of birds it would not have been cOrrect);*:. 
and also in specially alluding to the great sea-monsters 


= ¢ 
Ss =- 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I51I 


(wrongly translated whales in A.V.), since these huge 
saurians were a striking feature of the time. 

It should also be noticed that the narrative associates 
fishes and birds together, and separates them from 
land animals; and this, though by no means obvious, 
is also correct. For fishes and birds both produce 
their young in eggs ; they move in a similar way, either 
by wings in the air or fins in the water ; and their blood 
is practically the same, though this latter point was 
only discovered in modern times.!' Land animals on 
the other hand are, with trifling exceptions, quite 
different in each of these important respects. But 
again we must ask, what was there to suggest to the 
writer of Genesis that birds more resemble fishes, which 
live in the water, than animals, which, like themselves, 
are air-breathers and live on the land ? 

But we now come to what is perhaps the most 
important argument against the accuracy of the narra- 
tive. It refers to invertebrate animals, which include 
an immense variety of creatures, ranging from sponges 
and corals up to insects and shell-fish ; and where do 
these come in the narrative ? Some would place them 
among the moving creatures brought forth by the 
waters ; and others among the creeping things brought 
forth on the land. But in either case their position 
would be wrong, as invertebrate animals of some kind 
seem to have accompanied plants all along. The 
difficulty, however, is by no means insuperable, for 
neither of the above classes need include invertebrates. 
The former may refer to fishes alone, and the latter to 


1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. ix., p. 119. 


152 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. vit, 


small animals. Why, then, may not invertebrates 
be omitted from the narrative? It never claims to 
describe everything that was created ; and its extreme 
brevity, combined with the relative insignificance of 
these creatures, might well account for their being 
left out. And if so, the difficulty vanishes. 

(9.) Land animals. 

We next come to land animals, which apparently 
were produced from the earth, and not from previous 
forms of life. Science does not confirm. this, though 
it shows that the order in which they are placed, after 
fishes and birds and before man, is quite correct. It 
is true that a few marsupials seem to have appeared 
as early as birds, but land animals as a whole un- 
doubtedly succeeded them. Genesis, it will be 
noticed, divides them into three classes: cattle (do- 
mestic animals), creeping things (meaning doubtful) 2 
and beasts of the earth (wild animals). But as these 
come in a different order in verses 24 and 25, perhaps 
due to some error in copying, it would be unsafe to 
found on them any argument either way. There is 
also a difficulty in verse 30, where carnivorous animals 
do not seem to be allowed for ; though the writer, 
whoever he was, must certainly have known of them. 

(10.) Man. 

Last of all we come to the creation of man. This 
clearly means mankind or the human species, and not 

1 Two Hebrew words are used for these, one in Gen. 1. 24, and 
the other (evidently referring to the same creatures) in Gen. 7. 21, 
The latter is said in Lev. 1]. 29 to include weasels, mice, and lizards; 


and small animals are probably intended here also, as they are 
mentioned between other animals, 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 153 


a single individual, from the subsequent words, ‘ Let 
them have dominion.’ Now this creation of man is 
represented as not only subsequent in time, and distinct 
in nature, but of an altogether iigher order than any 
of the preceding ones; since it is not said that the 
earth brought forth a thinking animal, or anything 
of that kind, but that man was made (or evolved) 
in the zmage of God. This Divine likeness must of 
course depend not on any attribute, bodily or mental, 
which man shares with animals—for if so, they also 
would be in the image of God—but on some attribute 
which distinguishes man from the rest of creation. And 
yet, strange to say, the writer who assigns to man this 
unique character, with dominion over the whole of 
nature, does not give him, as we should have expected, 
a day to himself, but links him with land animals as 
both appearing on the sixth day. He thus represents 
man as having a certain relationship with animals, 
though being in part supernatural. And _ science 
agrees in all five points. 

And first as to the time of man’s appearance. Every- 
one now admits that this was not till towards the 
close of the Tertiary or most recent group of strata ; 
and no animal can be shown to have appeared since 
then. Man was thus not only a late, but the very 
latest member of creation, which is precisely the 
position assigned to him in Genesis. 

With regard to the actual date, the Bible says 
nothing ; for its chronology only leads back to the 
creation of Adam in Chap. 2, and not to that of the 
human species in Chap. 1. And it is implied in other 


-_ 


~~ 


154 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. vu. 


places besides this, that there were pre-Adamite races 
of men. Thus we are told that Cain was afraid that 
whoever found him would slay him, and that he had a 
wife ; though there is no hint that Adam had any 
daughters at that time, still less that one of them had 
been exiled with her brother and married him.) And 
some commentators have in consequence always 
maintained (long before geology was thought of) that 
Gen. 1. refers to a previous race of men.2. We need not 
therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the 


story of Adam and Eve, as to which the present writer 


has never seen a satisfactory explanation. 

Next, as to man being due to a distinct cause. We 
have already considered in Chapter IV. the enormous 
difference between animals and man. And though 
the first man may have been evolved from a previous 
ape, such a vast change, especially if it only occurred 
once in the world’s history, seems to have required a 
special creative force. At all events, science cannot 
account for it in any other way. 

Thirdly, this evolution involved not only a great 
development of existing faculties, but the introduction 
of an altogether new and higher faculty, the known 
possession of a free will, enabling man, on a small 
scale, both to design and to accomplish. This has been 
already shown to be the characteristic of man when 
compared with the rest of creation, so need not be 
further considered here. And it explains why man 

1 Gen..4. 15-17, 26: 6. 2-4. 


* E.g., I. Peyreyrius, a.p. 1655, quoted in the Speaker’s Com- 
mentary. 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 155 


(unlike plants, animals, etc.) is not said to have been 
created good. For goodness in a free being must 
include moral goodness, or righteousness ; and, as ex- 
plained in Chapter VI., man could not possibly have 
been created righteous. He might have been created 
perfect, like a machine, or tunocent, like a child, but 
to be righteous requires his own co-operation, his freely 
choosing to act right, though he might act wrong. No 
doubt he was made in a condition perfectly suited for 
the exercise of his free choice, but this seems included 
in God’s final approval of the whole creation that it 
was all very good. 

Fourthly, it will be remembered that the possession 
of a similar freedom, also able both to design and to 
accomplish, was shown in Chapters I. and II. to be 
the characteristic of the Deity, which distinguished His 
action from that of all natural forces. Scientifically, 
then, it is strictly true to say that man is made in 
the wmage of God, since the special attribute which dis- 
tinguishes him from all else on this planet is precisely 
the attribute of God Himself. And when we consider 
the vast possibilities involved in the creation of such a 
being, able to act right or wrong, and therefore able, 
if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of his 
Maker ; thus bringing sin into the world with all its 
consequent miseries, there seems a peculiar fitness in 
the statement of Genesis that before taking such a 
momentous step, even the Creator paused to deliberate, 
Let us make man, which He had not done before. 

It is also worth noting that no such expression as 
after ts kind, which is so frequently used of plants and 


156 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, VIII. 


animals, is applied to man ; for he is not one of a kind 
in the same sense. Each man is unique, a separate 
personal being, distinct from all else in the world ; and 
not (like a tree, for instance) merely one example of 
a certain way in which molecules may be grouped. 

While, lastly, science has rendered it abundantly 
clear that, in spite of all this, man in his physical nature 
is closely allied to land animals. And therefore the 
division in Genesis of fishes and birds on one day, and 
land animals and man on another, is more correct than 
the more obvious division of all animals on one day 
and man on another. 

In dwelling on details like these, however, though 
many of them are sufficiently striking, there is a danger 
of forgetting the main features, which are briefly these. 
In Genesis there are three periods of life, each with a 
leading feature: that of the third day being vegeta- 
tion; that of the fifth day fishes and birds, special 
mention being made of great sea-monsters ; and that 
of the sixth day land animals, and at its close man. 
And the three great periods in Geology have just the 
same characteristics; the Primary being distinguished 
by its vegetation (e.2., the coal beds) ; the Secondary by 
its saurians, or great sea-monsters ; and the Tertiary 
by its land animals ; and at its close (now often called 
the Quaternary) by man. The harmony between the 
two is, to say the least, very remarkable. 

(D.) ConcLuston, 

We have now examined in detail the account of 
creation given in Genesis, and have compared it as far 
as possible with the teaching of astronomy and geology ; 


THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. E57 


and, as we have shown, it seems to be in substantial 
agreement all through. And this, it may be added, 
has been the opinion of some leading men of science. 
Thus Romanes once said, and as if the fact was un- 
disputed, ‘ The order in which the flora and fauna are 
said, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon 
the earth corresponds with that which the theory 
of Evolution requires and the evidence of geology 
proves.’ We decide, then, that the order of creation, 
as. given in Genesis, is in most cases certainly, and in 
all cases probably, correct. 

And this is plainly of the utmost importance, for 
the points of agreement between Genesis and science 
are far too many and far too unlikely to be due to 
accident. They are far too many; for the chances 
against even eight events being put down in their 
correct order by guesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they 
are far too unlikely; for what could have induced 
an ignorant man to say that light came before the 
sun, or that the earth once existed without any dry 
land? Moreover, the general principles of the narra- 
tive, especially its pure Monotheism and its gradual 
development, are very strongly in its favour. While 
our admiration for it is still further increased by its 
extreme conciseness and simplicity. Seldom, indeed, 
has such a mass of information been condensed into as 
few lines ; and seldom has such a difficult subject been 
treated so accurately, and yet in such simple and 
popular language. . 

Now what conclusion can be drawn from all this ? 

1 Nature, 11th August, 1881. 


there seem ee be ong Bye altern i res toc hoos e fr 

either the writer, whoever he was, knew as sae 
_ more, of science than we do, or else the Endwicaeeea 
revealed to him by God. “And if we admit revelati 
at all, the latter certainly seems the less improba a 


We therefore conclude that this account of the creatior a 
was Dienely revealed. ea: 


CHAPTER: TX. 
THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES. 


Great Importance of the Pentateuch; it claims to have been written 
by Moses, and there is nothing unlikely in this. 
(A.) THE EGypTicITy OF THE PENTATEUCH. 


This is very strongly in favour of its early date, as shown 
(1.) In the history of Joseph. 

(2.) In the history of Moses. 

(3-) In the laws and addresses. 


(6.) THE Laws oF THE PENTATEUCH. 
These are also in favour of its early date, as shown by: 
(1.) Their subject-matter. 
(2.) Their relation to the history. 
(3.) Their relation to one another. 
(4.) Their wording, 
(C.) THE LatTE-DatTEe THEORY. 
There are three chief arguments in favour of this, but they 
are not at all convincing : 
(1.) The language of the Pentateuch. 
(2.) The ignorance of its laws. 
(3.) The finding of Deuteronomy. 
(D.) CoNcLusIon. 


‘The Pentateuch is, on the whole, a contemporary narra- 
tive; and hence we must admit the miracles of the 
Exodus. Objection from there being no confirming 
evidence. 


We pass on now to the ovigin of the Jewish Religion— 
that is to say, the events connected with the Exodus 
159 . 


160 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, IX. 


from Egypt. And as the only account we have of 
these is contained in the Pentateuch, we must examine 
this book carefully. Is it a trustworthy, and, on the 
whole, accurate account of the events which it records? 
And this depends chiefly on its date. Is it a con- 
temporary document, written by, or in the time of, 
Moses ? | 

And it must be noticed at starting, that a large part 
of it distinctly claims to have been written by Moses. 
It is not merely that this title is given in a head- 
ing, or opening verse, which might easily be added in 
later times. But it is asserted, positively and re- 
peatedly, all through the book itself, both in Exodus, 
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that many of the events 
or laws referred to (often including several chapters) 
were actually written down by Moses. This is an im- 
portant point, and it must not be forgotten. 

Moreover, modern discoveries have shown con- 
Clusively that there is nothing in the Pentateuch, 
except the earlier chapters of Genesis, which might 
not have been written down as it occurred. For we 
now know that writing was in common use throughout 
Babylonia and Egypt centuries before the time of 
Abraham, and these were precisely the two countries 
with which the ancestors of the Jews had most to do. 
While at the time of the Exodus, Egypt was in such a 
civilised state, that it is practically certain that Moses, 
and the other leaders of Israel, could have written had 
they chosen. And as they somehow or other brought 
the people out of Egypt, it is extremely probable that 

aExod. 17.) 14:3 24. 4; 34. 27; Num. 33. 2; Deut. 31. 9, 22, 24. 


THE EXODUS. I61 


they should have recorded it. But did they, and do 
we possess this record in the Pentateuch? This is 
the question we have to decide, and we will first con- 
sider what is called the Egyticity of the Pentateuch, 
and then its Jaws, both of which are very strongly in 
favour of an early date; then what can be said on 
behalf of the opposite, or late-date theory ; and lastly, 
the conclusion to be drawn from admitting its 
genuineness. 

(A.) THe Ecypticiry oF THE PENTATEUCH. 

And first as to the Egypticity of the Pentateuch. 
By this is meant that’ the part of the Pentateuch in 
which reference is made to Egyptian matters appears 
to be written with correct details throughout. This 
would of course be only natural in a contemporary 
writer acquainted with Egypt, but would. be most 
unlikely for a late writer in Canaan. The evidence 
cannot of course be properly appreciated without 
some knowledge of ancient Egypt; but it is far too 
important to be omitted; so we will first consider it 
in regard to the history of Joseph, then in regard to 
that of Moses, and then in regard to the laws and 
addresses. 

(1.) In the history of Joseph. 

To begin with, there are three cases where it is often 
said that the writer seems not to have been a con- 
temporary, since Egyptian customs are there explained, 
as if unknown to the reader. These are their eating at 
different tables from the Hebrews, their abhorrence of 
shepherds, and their habit of embalming. But when 

1 Gen. 43. 32; 46. 34; 50. 3. 
1g: 


162 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.’ CHAP. IX. 


the context is examined, the inference from the first 
two will be seen to be very doubtful ; though that from 
the third is in favour of a late date. | 
On the other hand, there is abundant evidence in 
favour of a contemporary origin, in fact, nearly every 


point can be illustrated by ancient inscriptions. For — 


instance, to take a single chapter,! we know that the 
Pharaohs attached great weight to dreams, and that 
they used to consult their magicians and wise men 
when in doubt, both these classes being often men- 
tioned—and mentioned together—on the monuments. 


Moreover, the details of the dreams are peculiarly - 


Egyptian. Cattle coming up out of the river and 
feeding on the reed-grass (an Egyptian word) was a 
common sight in that country, but must have been 
almost unknown in Canaan. In the same way seven- 
eared wheat seems to have been a product of Egypt, 


but is nowhere mentioned as grown in Canaan. We — 


also know that there was an official called the Super- 
intendent of the Bakery (7.c., the chief baker), and that 
another had the same position in regard to the 
Butlers. 

Next, when Joseph was hastily summoned to appear 
before Pharaoh, it is mentioned that he yet stopped 
to shave. To anyone familiar with ancient Egypt, 
nothing could be more natural than this, as the better 
class of Egyptians always shaved ; but to an Israelite, 
on the other hand, it would be most unnatural, as 
they always wore beards.2 So, again, the custom of 
laying up corn in store-houses, to provide against the 


1 Gen. 41. ? 2:Sam.10. 5. 


— 


THE EXODUS. 163 


frequent famines, and for taxation, was thoroughly 
Egyptian ; the Superintendent of the Granaries being 
a well-known official. | 

Moreover, we know that when foreigners rose to 
great importance in Egypt, they often adopted a 
change of name ; and that it was the custom to give 
a signet ring, and a gold collar (or chain about the 
neck) as a mark of royal favour. This bestowal of 
a gold collar was a peculiarly Egyptian custom, being 
called receiving gold, and is continually alluded to on 
the monuments. And Joseph’s new name Zaphen- 
_athpaneah, as well as Asenath, and Potiphera, are all 
genuine Egyptian names, though (with the exception 
of Asenath) they have not at present been found as 
early as the time of Joseph. In short, everything in 
this chapter, (and it is but a sample of many others), 
is perfectly correct for Egypt, though much of it would 
be incorrect for Canaan. 

And there is also evidence (indirect, but perhaps 
the more valuable on that account) that all this latter 
part of Genesis was actually written in Egypt. This 
is afforded by six passages, where, after the name of a 
place, is added some such phrase as which is in Canaan. 
And yet there do not appear to be any other places 
of the same name liable to be confused with these. 
_ When then would it be necessary to explain to the 
Israelites that these places, Shechem, etc., were in 
Canaan? Certainly not after the conquest, when 
they were living there, and it was evident to every- 
one ; so we must refer them to the time of the sojourn 

: Etre, 23) 2, 19; $3. 18: 35. 6; 48. 3; 49. 30. 

II—2 


164 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX. 


in Egypt. And this is strongly confirmed by a 
remark as to the desert of Shur, which lies between 
Egypt and Canaan, and which is described as being 
before Egypt as thou goest towards Assyria... Clearly 
then this passage also must have been written in 
Egypt, since only to one living there would Shur — 
appear on the way to Assyria. 

And the same may be said, though less decisively, 
of some other passages, such as the strangely inverted 
order of first asking after a person’s health, and then, 
if he is still alive.2 This curious custom was thoroughly 
Egyptian, as some exactly similar cases have been 
found in a papyrus dated in the eighth year of 
Menephthah, generally thought to be the Pharaoh 
of the Exodus.* But it is scarcely likely to have been 
adopted by a writer in Canaan, as it makes the narra- 
tive seem so ridiculous. 

(2.) In the history of Moses. 

Secondly, as to the history of Moses. His being ex- 
posed in an ark of papyrus smeared with bitumen was 
quite suited to Egypt, where both materials were com- 
monly used, but would have been most unsuitable 
anywhere else. Again, we find the use of straw in 
brickmaking is alluded to, as is also the custom of 
reaping the corn close to the ear, so as to leave the bulk 
of the straw standing in the field as stubble.¢ Both of 
these were undoubtedly Egyptian customs ; but, as far 
as we know, the Israelites in Canaan never made bricks 


1 Gen. 25. 18. 2 Gen. 43. 27-28. 

° Chabas. Mélanges Egyptologiques, Third Series, vol. ii., Paris, 
1873, p. 152. 

4 Exod. 5. 7, 12. 


THE EXODUS. 165 


with straw, while their method of reaping’ was to. 
tie up the corn in sheaves instead of collecting it in | 
baskets. 

Next, as to the Ten Plagues. There is much local 
colouring here, and hardly one of them would have 
been suitable in Canaan. Moreover, the order in 
which they come is very significant. It is clear from 
the mention of stubble as still in the fields that the first 
interview of Moses with Pharaoh took place shortly 
after harvest-time, say May or June ; while the Exodus 
took place in the month Abib, which corresponds to 
our March and April. Hence we have nearly a year 
along which to distribute the plagues; and it will be 
-seen that they agree with the natural calamities of 
Egypt in a remarkable manner. 

(1.) The water being turned into blood cannot, of 
course, be taken literally, any more than when Joel 
speaks of the moon being turned into blood.? It 
refers to the reddish discoloration of the Nile, which 
commences annually about the end of June, though 
it is not generally sufficient to kill the fish or render the 
water unfit to drink. And the incidental mention of 
vessels of wood and stone® is interesting, as it was the 
custom in Egypt to purify the Nile water by letting 
it stand in such vessels; and the writer evidently 
knew this, and took for granted that his readers knew 
it too. (2.) Frogs are most troublesome in September. 
(3.) Lice, perhaps mosquitoes or gnats, and (4.) flies, 
are unfortunately not confined to any one month, but 
are usually worst in October. (5.) Murrain among 

S22e,, Gen. 37. 7, 2 heel 2:31. 3 Exod: Jo 10: 


166 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, IX. 


the cattle and (6.) boils cannot be identified for cer- 
tain, but their coming on just after the preceding 
plagues is most natural, considering what we now 
know, as to the important part taken by mosquitoes 


and flies in spreading disease. (7.) The particulars | 


given in regard to the hail, that the barley was then 
in the ear, but the wheat not grown up, fix its date 
about the end of January, when severe hailstorms have 
been known in Egypt. (8.) Locusts are known to 
have visited Egypt terribly in March, which seems the 
time intended, as the leaves were then young. And 


they have sometimes been brought there by an East 


wind, and then driven back through the wind changing 
Tound, exactly as recorded in Exodus. (9.) The 
darkness which might be felt was probably due to the 
desert wind, which blows at intervals after the end of 
March, and sometimes brings with it such clouds of 
sand as to darken the atmosphere.*’ And curiously 
enough it often lasts for about three days, and moves 
in a narrow belt, so that the land may be dark in one 
place, and light in another close by. (z0.) The death 
of the Firstborn was evidently not a natural calamity. 
But what is specially interesting is the statement 
against all the Gods of Egypt I will execute judgments, 
without any explanation being given of what is meant 
by this.2 It refers to the Egyptian custom of wor- 
shipping Living animals, the firstborn of which were 

* I have noticed the ‘same in the Transvaal, in particular a 


Sand-storm at Christiana, on 20th Oct., 1900, which so darkened 


the sky that for about a quarter of an hour I had to light a 
candle, 


peaod. 12-1: Nom 33. 4. See also Exod. 8. 26. 


THE EXODUS. 167 


also to die ; but this would only be familiar to a writer 
in Egypt, since, as far as we know, such worship was 
never practised in Canaan. 

The agreement all through is most remarkable, and 
very suggestive of a contemporary date. And it ex- 
plains to some extent the strange vacillation of 
Pharaoh in so often permitting, and then forbidding 
the Israelites to depart ; as he may have been told 
that something similar to all the plagues (except the 
last) had been known before, and that therefore they — 
had not any real significance. How easily a late 
writer might destroy it by accidentally altering the 
order of the plagues is shown in Ps. 78 and 105; 
neither list agrees with the Pentateuch, and as little 
do they agree with each other. 

(3.) In the laws and addresses. 

And the same familiarity with Egypt is shown in 
the subsequent laws and addresses of the Pentateuch. 
Thus we read of laws being written on the doorposts 
and gates of houses, and on great stones covered with 
plaster, both of which were undoubtedly Egyptian 
customs ; and the latter was not, as far as we know, 
common elsewhere. Similarly the Egyptian habit of 
writing persons’ names on sticks, was evidently familiar 
to the writer.) Then we have the curious custom of? 
placing offerings of food for the dead, which was also very “ 
common in Egypt, probably because they embalmed 
their dead, and believed in their eventual return to life, 
and therefore placed some food in the tomb to be at 
hand when wanted. But here again, as far as we 


1 Num. 17. 2. 


168 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX, 


know, such a practice never prevailed among the 
Israelites.1 

Once more, the customary food of the people in 
Egypt is given as fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, 
onions, and garlic, all of which were commonly eaten 
there.? But as the Hebrew names of four out of the 
five vegetables do not occur elsewhere in the Bible, 
they could scarcely have been very common in Canaan ; 
while none of the characteristic productions of that 
land, such as honey, milk, butter, figs, raisins, almonds, 
and olives, are mentioned. The list is, as it ought to 
be, thoroughly Egyptian. 3 

It must next be noticed that a large part of the 
_ ritual worship prescribed in the Pentateuch is obviously 
borrowed from Egypt. The most striking instance is 
that of the ark. A sacred ark is seen on Egyptian 
monuments centuries before the Exodus, and is some- 
times shown as carried by poles resting on men’s 
shoulders, and surmounted by winged figures some- 
thing like the cherubim. Among other points most 
likely derived from Egypt are the Tabernacle: the 
mercy-seat ; the dress and regulations for the priests, 
especially their. only wearing linen garments, which 


seems to have been peculiar to Egypt ; the overlaying ~ 


the ark with gold; and many of the ornaments of the 

Sanctuary. All this implies a lawgiver who knew 

Egypt remarkably well, and a people who knew it 

almost as well. How very suitable this would be for 

Moses, who was educated in Egypt, and for the 

Israelites, who had just come from there, scarcely 
* Deut. 6.9; 11, 20; 27.2; 26. 14. 2 Num. 1l. s. 


THE EXODUS, 169 


needs pointing out; while, on the other hand, how 
unsuitable, if not impossible, it would be for a law- 
giver centuries afterwards in Canaan is equally 
clear. 

And the materials said to have been used for this 
worship are precisely such as the Israelites might 
have then employed. The ark, for instance, was not 
made of oak, or cedar, or fir, as would have been the 
case in Canaan, but of acacia (shittim), which is very 
common near Sinai, though rarely used in Canaan. 
And the other materials were goats’ hair, rams’ 
skins, sealskins from the adjoining gulfs of the Red 
Sea, and gold, silver, brass, precious stones, and fine 
linen from the Egyptian spoils; the latter evidently 
so, as an Egyptian word is used.1 There is no 
anachronism anywhere, such as a late writer might 
have fallen into. 

Moreover, in other places, the writer of the Penta- 
teuch frequently assumes that his readers know Egypt 
as well as himself.2 Thus the people are twice re- 
minded of the diseases they suffered from in Egypt— 
‘the evil diseases of Egypt which thou knowest’ or 
‘which thou wast afraid of ’—and they are warned 
that if they misbehave, God will punish them with 
the same diseases again. But such a warning would 
have been quite useless many centuries later in Canaan ; 
just as it would be useless to warn an Englishman now 
_of the diseases of Normandy, which thou wast afraid of, 
if this referred to some diseases our ancestors had 
before they left Normandy in the eleventh century. 

1 Exod. 25. 1-10. 2) Deut. 7. 15.; 28. 60°; Exod. 23.°5; 


170 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX. 


Such words must clearly have been written soon after- 
wards. Similarly the people are urged to be kind to 
strangers, because they knew the heart of a stranger, 
seeing they had been strangers in the land of Egypt. 
And this again could scarcely have been written cen- 
turies after they left Egypt. 

Elsewhere the writer describes the peculiarities of 
Canaan as to climate and productions: and with a 
view to their being better understood, he contrasts 
them with those of Egypt. Obviously, then, the people 
are again supposed to know Egypt, and not to know 
Canaan. For instance, Canaan is described as a 
country of hills and valleys, and consequently of 
running brooks ; and not like Egypt where they had 
to water the land with their feet. But no explanation 
is given of this. It probably refers to the water- 
wheels, which were necessary for raising water in a 


flat country like Egypt, and which were worked by - 


men’s feet. But can we imagine a late writer in 
Canaan using such a phrase without explaining it ? 
On the other hand, if the words were spoken by 
Moses, all is clear; no explanation was given, because 
(for persons who had just come from Egypt) none was 
needed. 

Lastly, the writer of the Pentateuch was evidently 
well acquainted with the Egyptian language. Nearly 
all the Egyptian names mentioned are accurate tran- 
scriptions of Egyptian words into Hebrew. Similarly 
the writer often uses Egyptian nouns or nouns common 
to both languages, several of them sometimes occurring 


Deut. 87-10 ? 11<10-12: 


wv 
wl 
- 


THE .EXODUS: aay 


in a single verse; e.g., ark, papyrus, bitumen, pitch, 
flags, brink, and the river.1 And as many of these 
words—the first four out of the above seven, for in- 
stance—are seldom, if ever, found in the Prophets 
when treating of Egyptian matters, we are justified in 
concluding that they are not only such as a writer 
in Egypt would have used, but are such as a writer 
in Canaan would not have used. 

On the whole, then, it is plain that when Egyptian 
matters are touched upon in the Pentateuch, the most 
thorough familiarity with native customs, seasons, 
and language is everywhere displayed, though in 
many cases these are quite different from those of 
Canaan. Moreover, the evidence is never introduced 
ostentatiously, or as if the writer wished to display 
his knowledge, but it drops out incidentally, and in 
the most natural manner possible. And we therefore 
seem forced to conclude that the writer was a con- 
temporary who lived in Egypt, and knew the country 
intimately ; and as we have shown, he evidently 
wrote for persons who had only recently come from 
there. ' 

(B.) THE Laws oF THE PENTATEUCH. 

We pass on now to the Laws of the Pentateuch, 
which commence in the middle of Exodus, and occupy 
the greater part of the remaining books. And as we 
shall see, they also (quite apart from their references 
to Egypt) bear strong marks of a contemporary origin. 
Nor is there anything surprising in this, for the 
analogy of other ancient countries would lead us to 

t Exod. 2. 3. 


172 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX. 


expect that the Israelites would have had an organ- 
» ised priesthood, with written laws at a very early 
time. 

(1.) Their subject-matter. 

In the first place several of the laws refer exclusively 
to the wilderness life of the Israelites : and it is hence 
probable that they originated in the days of Moses. 
Among such laws may be mentioned those referring to 
the Tabernacle and its furniture: It is obvious that 
we have here no mere description of the Tabernacle, 
but a set of working directions for its construction ; 


and if Moses received such instructions from God, that - 


he should at once record them is most reasonable. 
And that to this should be added soon afterwards a 
precise account of their carrying out is equally so. 
But at no later time is this doudle record of instructions 
and fulfilment at all probable. Nor can these laws 
have been invented, as is sometimes alleged, merely 
as a pattern for the first or second Temple ; for what 
need was there to describe such things as curtains, 
loops, clasps, boards, tenons, sockets, bars, screens, 
hangings, pillars, hooks, fillets, and pins, if the end 
in view was a pattern for a stone temple? And yet 
this is all given in detail twice over ; so a late date for 
any of these chapters is most improbable. 

A similar argument applies to the laws regarding the 
camp and order of march.2 Full particulars are given 
as to the exact position every tribe was to occupy, and 
how the Levites were to carry the Tabernacle. And 
what could be the object of inventing such laws in 

1 Exod. 25-28 ; 36-39. 2 Num. 1. 47—4. 49. 


| 
: 


THE EXODUS. 173 


later times, when, as far as we know, the Israelites 
never encamped or marched in this manner? In 
fact, they would have been of no more use after 
the people settled in Canaan, than laws concerning 
the Heptarchy would be at present. All these laws, 
then, amounting to over eleven chapters, must either 
have been of contemporary date, or else perfectly 
useless. | 

And the same may be said of the long and uninterest- 
ing list of the Journeys in the Desert ;! which certainly 
looks like an official record kept at the time. What 
possible object could there have been in inventing 
such a list centuries afterwards in Canaan? And yet 
if we admit its early date, it seems to involve that of 
other portions of the Pentateuch, for it merely sum- 
marises what is there more fully described. 

Moreover, the subject-matter of many of the other 
laws, though applicable to Canaan, is strongly sugges- 
tive of an early date ; for the laws are of such a public 
character that the Israelites in later times could scarcely 
have ascribed them to Moses if, as a matter of fact, 
they had only just been invented, and were unknown 
to their forefathers. Take, for instance, the remark- 
able land law, that whoever bought an estate was to 
restore it to its original owner in the year of Jubilee, the 
price gradually decreasing according to the nearness of 
this year.2, How difficult it must have been to first 
introduce such a law as this! It would have revolu- 
tionised the whole community ; for some men would 
suddenly lose their possessions, and others be as 

1 Num. 33. 4 -Lev.. 25. 13, 


174 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX, 


Ld 


suddenly restored to theirs. And how could anyone in 
later times have made such a law, and yet assert that 
it had been in existence for centuries, though no one 
had ever heard of it ? 


Or again, take the law regarding the Levitical Cities. 


The Levites, it will be remembered, had no separate 
territory like the other tribes, but were given forty- 
eight special towns. And it is scarcely conceivable 
that such a curious arrangement could have been made 
at any time except that of the conquest ; still less that 
it could have been made centuries afterwards, and yet 
ascribed to Moses, without everyone at once. declaring 
it to be spurious. 

(2.) Their relation to the history. 

It will next be noticed that the laws are not syste- 
matically arranged, but are closely related to the 
history. To begin with, as many as fourteen of them 
are actually dated either as to time or place. For 
instance, ‘ The Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness 
of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after 
they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,’ 
etc.* And several others are associated with the 
events which led to their enactment; and these are 
often of such a trivial nature, that it is hard to imagine 
their being ‘invented.? 

Now, had the laws been the work of late writers, 


this is the last thing we should have expected ; the 


natural form for such writers to adopt being either 


1 Num. 35. 1-8. 

2 Num. 9. 1; Exod. 12. 1 (ev. 7.38). 621 nok ae ee 46 ; 
Bist Num, 1..7/: 3 14; 33.50; 35. 1; Deut. 1. 3; 4. 46; 29. 1. 
8 Lev. 24. 15; Num. 9. 10: 18. 35; 27. 8;:36. 8. 


THE EXODUS. 175 


separate commands or regular codes. A contem- 
porary, on the other hand, would of course record the 
laws in connection with the events which gave rise to 
them, and at the times and places when they were 
issued; and this is precisely what we find in the 
Pentateuch. It shows, not a complete legislation, 
but one 7m process of growth, and of growth in intimate 
connection with the accompanying history. 

And this is confirmed by the fact that in several 
places, especially in Deuteronomy, stress is laid on the 
people's personal knowledge of the events referred to ; 
e.g., ‘ The Lord made not this covenant’ (that at 
Horeb) ‘ with our fathers, but with us, even us, who 
are all of us here alive this day.’! Of course only 
persons over forty would have been born before the 
Exodus ; but these elders would have been the ones 
addressed by Moses, and most of them would remember 
the striking events of their childhood. 

_ Moreover, this personal knowledge is often appealed 
to as a special and chief reason for obeying the laws.? 
For instance, ‘I speak not with your children which 
have not known, and which have not seen the chastise- 
ment of the Lord, .. . but your eyes have seen all the 
great work of the Lord which He did. Therefore shall 
ye keep all the commandments,’ etc. Plainly this 
would have had no force in later times ; indeed it would 
have furnished an excuse for not obeying the laws, since 
the people of those days had no personal knowledge 
of the events referred to. And is it likely, we may 
Deut De 3 eet. 0, Foy, 22 2° 20.557. 
2 Deut. 11. 2-7 ; 4. 3-15 ; 29. 2-9. 


- 


176 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX, 


ask, that a late author, who falsely ascribed his laws 
to Moses, in order to get them obeyed, should yet put 
into the mouth of Moses himself an excuse for not 
obeying them ? 

It is also worth noting in this connection how much 
Moses relies on his own personal authority in issuing 
the laws, especially those in Deuteronomy. The later 
prophets always speak in God’s name, and such ex- 
pressions as Thus saith the Lord, Hear ye the word of 


the Lord, are extremely common, occurring over 800 


times ; but in the laws of the Pentateuch nothing of 
the kind is found. They are delivered by Moses in his 
own name, often with the siunple words, J command 
thee, which occur thirty times in Deuteronomy. And, 
of course, if the laws are genuine, there is nothing sur- 


prising in this, for forty years’ sole leadership might. 


well have induced Moses to adopt such a peremptory 
tone. But a late author, afraid of writing in his own 
name, would scarcely have adopted a style so different 
from that of all the other prophets. 

(3.) Their relation to one another. 

Now the laws profess to have been delivered mainly 
at two periods—near the beginning and at the end of 
the forty years’ wanderings. And, it will be seen, the 
difference between the two sets of laws exactly corre- 
sponds to such a difference in date. To begin with, the 


laws referring to the Tabernacle, the camp, and some 


temporary duties of the Levites, are of course peculiar 
to the earlier group ; as are also numerous ceremonial 
and ritual laws, which would have been out of place in 
Deuteronomy, as that was addressed to the laity. On 


w 


4 
u 
{ 
- 
3 
, 
4 


THE EXODUS. 177 


the other hand the laws as to the division of Canaan 
among the tribes, the possession of lands and houses, 
and the appointment of a successor to Moses, naturally 
belong only to the later group. Among other additions 
are the laws referring to apostasy among the Israelites, 
and the admission of foreigners to the nation, both of 
which might be required when they became settled in 
Canaan. 

In some cases, however, though the same laws occur 
in both groups, there are certain differences between 
them. The most important concerns the duties of 
Priests and Levites. In Leviticus and Numbers the 
tribe of Levi is divided into two parts; the sons of 
Aaron being Priests, and the rest of the tribe Levies. 
But in Deuteronomy, it is urged, this distinction is 
unknown ; the priests are never called sons of Aaron, 
but are called Levites; while, on the other hand, 
Levites are allowed to perform priestly duties. In 
answer to this it must be noticed, that as Aaron was 
himself a descendant of Levi, all priests were, as a 
matter of fact, Levites. And the writer of Deuter- 
onomy was quite able to distinguish between them 
when necessary; for in Deut. 18. 1-8 the first two 
verses are said to refer to the whole tribe, the next 
three to the pests, and the last three to the Levites. 
The only difference, then, that exists is that Deuter- 
onomy seems to recognise that Levites might perform 
priestly duties. But, with the doubtful exception of 
the above three verses, there is not a single passage in 
which distinctively priestly duties are assigned to those 

distinctively called Levites. All that we find is that 
To 


~ 


178 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. = cuap.Ix 


where the whole tribe is referred to, the various duties 
are named together.! 
In other cases the differences are as a rule trivial, 


and they often tend to prove the genuineness of the — 


laws. Take for instance the slaughter of animals2 


In Leviticus every ox, sheep, or goat intended for food — 
was to be first brought to the Tabernacle as a kind — 


of offering, and there killed. But in Deuteronomy 
those living at a distance were to be allowed to kill 
and eat at home. The first obviously suits the cir- 
cumstances of the desert, when everyone was near 
the Tabernacle, and the latter those of Canaan, when 
some were near and many at a distance. Moreover, 
the passage in Deuteronomy begins J f the place, etc., 
which implies some previous law on the subject. And 
it also implies that the gazelle and hart were not 
included in this law, precisely as we find them not in- 
cluded in Leviticus. Thus the apparent discrepancy 
is more like an undesigned agreement between the 
laws, the later one implying the existence of the 


earlier, which had now to be modified to make it. 


suitable to Canaan. 

And exactly the same may be said as to the Jist of 
clean and unclean animals.? Leviticus includes among 
clean animals, which might be eaten, four kinds of 
locusts, and among unclean animals, which might not 


be eaten, eight creeping things, such as the weasel, — 


mouse, and lizard, all of which Deuteronomy omits. 
On the other hand, the latter mentions several animals, 


1 F.g., Deut. 10. 8. 2 Lev. 17. 1-7; Deut. 12. 21, 22, 
3 Lev. 11; Deut. 14. 


+ 
> 
ee te el ae i a . 


= 


i a th es 


Lee ee Ce ee ee ee ee 


THE EXODUS. : 179 


such as the ox, sheep, and hart, which the former omits. 
Plainly, then, when Leviticus was written there was a 
lack of animal food, which might tempt the people to 
eat locusts (permitted), or even mice and lizards (for- 
bidden) ; while when Deuteronomy was written animal 
food was plentiful, and regulations as to these were 
wholly unnecessary. Thus the differences in the laws 
again correspond precisely to the different conditions 
_ of the people at the two periods. 

In each of these cases, then, and they are only 
_ samples of several others, we have but two alter- 
natives to choose from. Either the differences result 
from the fact that the laws date respectively from the 
times they profess to, when all is plain and consistent ; 
or else they must be due to the carefully planned work 
of some late writer ; in which case, while we admire 
the skill with which the fraud is executed, we cannot 
help wondering at its utter uselessness. Why indeed 
was it necessary to invent two sets of laws at all ? 
Surely one complete code would have been better from 
every point of view? The only motive, then, that 
late writers could have had in inventing a double code 
was to give the laws an air of genuineness. And if 
this was their object, it must be allowed that they have 
thoroughly succeeded. 

(4.) Their wording. 

Lastly we have to consider the wording of the laws, 
and this also is strongly in favour of a contemporary 
origin. Thus, as many as sixteen of them, which 
have special reference to Canaan, are introduced with 
_ some such phrase as when ye be come into the land of 
12—2 


180 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX. 


Canaan, which plainly supposes that the people were 
not there already. And it is a phrase which would soon 
have dropped out had the laws been merely handed on 
traditionally, and not written down at the time. And 
the same may be said of numerous other laws, which ~ 
the people are told to obey when they enter into 
Canaan ; or are even exhorted to obey in order that 
they may enter into Canaan, both of which again 
imply that they were not there already. 

Moreover, many of the laws refer to the camp, and 
sometimes to ¢ents, in such a way as to imply that the 
whole life and worship of Israel was carried on in a_ 
camp.* These laws were, with some necessary modifi- 
cations, as binding in Canaan as in the wilderness ; so 
there was no reason to refer to the camp here, except 
the most natural one that they were actually issued 
in the camp, and were consequently adapted in their ~ 
language to camp-life. 

The wording, then, of all these laws bears unmis- 
takable signs of contemporary origin. Of course, these 
signs may have been inserted at a later time to give 
subsequent laws a Mosaic air, but they cannot be 
explained in any other way. And therefore the laws 
must be either contemporary, or deliberate frauds. No 
innocent mistake in ascribing old laws to Moses, such 
as the Athenians may have made in ascribing theirs 

4° Exod. 12. 25 5°13. 11; Lev. 14.34: 19. 23; 93°" -Seieeeee 
Nam..b.2,.18 ; 35:'10°};Dent. 7. 1 5,12. 13-10, 20 sae 14 [Elsa 
26. I. 

eWDeut, 4.0.78 5 TAs Deis CO. 1572 8. Le ee 23. 


* E.g.; Exod: 20; 14); Lev.4:"12 <6. 1175013! 46; 14. 3; 16. 26; 
Rings oNums6.523 19.03 614 


THE EXODUS. 181 


to Solon, can possibly explain such language as this ; 
either it was the natural result of the laws being 
genuine, or else it was adopted on purpose to mislead. 

Nor is the difficulty got over by saying that the 
laws date from very different times ; and that perhaps 
the last compiler, who may have lived at the time of 
the Exile, did not invent any laws himself, but merely 
selected and arranged previous ones. For shifting the 
difficulty does not remove it. Each individual law, 
if it falsely claims to date from before the conquest of 
Canaan (and, as we have seen, numbers and numbers 
of laws do so claim, When ye be come into the land of 
Canaan, etc.), must have been invented by someone ; 
and this someone, though he really wrote it after the 
conquest of Canaan, must have inserted these words 
to make it appear that it was written before. 

Practically, then, as just said, there are but two 
theories to choose from—that of genuine Mosaic laws 
and that of deliberate frauds. And bearing this in 
mind, we must ask, is it likely that men with such a 
passion for truth and righteousness as the Hebrew 
prophets—men who themselves so denounced lying 
and deception in every form!—should have spent their 
time in composing such forgeries ? Could they, more- 
over, have done it so skilfully, as the laws contain the 
strongest, and most subtle, marks of genuineness ; 
and could they have done it so successfully as never to 
have been detected at the time? This is the great 
moral difficulty in assigning these laws to a later 
age, and to many it seems insuperable. 

1 Jer. 8.8; 14. 14; Ezek. 13. 7. 


182 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX, 


We have now concluded a brief examination of the 
laws of the Pentateuch, and however we regard them, 
they have every appearance of dating from the time of 
Moses. Moreover the whole of the evidence is of such’ a 
kind that the ordinary reader can judge of its value. 
Anyone who likes to look out the texts for himself can 
form an independent opinion as to how extremely 
improbable it is that laws such as these should have 
been invented in after times. We have thus two very 
strong arguments in favour of an early date for the 
Pentateuch : the one derived from its Egy piicity, and 
the other from its laws. 

(C.) THe Late-DaTE THEORY. 

We pass on now to the opposite, or late-date theory. 
According to this the Pentateuch, though it no doubt 
contains older traditions, and perhaps fragments of 
older documents, was in the main not written til] 
many centuries after the death of Moses. And the 
three chief arguments in its favour are based on the 
language of the Pentateuch, the apparent ignorance of 
its laws in later times, and the finding of Deuteronomy 
in the reign of Josiah; and we will examine each in 
turn. 

(1.) The language of the Pentateuch. 

Now in general character the language of the Pen- 
tateuch undoubtedly resembles that of some of the 
Hebrew prophets, such as Jeremiah; and therefore it 
is assumed that it must date from about the same time. 
But unfortunately critics who maintain this view do 
not admit that we have any genuine Hebrew documents 
of a much earlier date, with which to compare it. And 


THE EXODUS. 183 


therefore we have no means of knowing how much 
the language altered, so this of itself proves little ; 
while the Pentateuch contains many hundreds of 
words peculiar to itself. 

But it is said we have two actual signs of late date. 
The first is that the common word for west in the 
Pentateuch really means the sea, and hence, it is 
said, the writer’s standpoint must have been that of 
Canaan, and the books must have been written after 
the settlement in that country. But the fallacy here 
is obvious. In all probability this word was adopted 
in the Hebrew language before the time of Abraham, 
when the sea, 7.e., the Mediterranean, actually was to 
the west. And in later years a Hebrew, writing in 
Egypt or anywhere else, would naturally use the word, 
without thinking that it was inappropriate to that 
particular place. The other expression is beyond 
Jordan, which is frequently used to denote the eastern 
bank ; and hence again, it is urged, the writer’s stand- 
point must have been that of Canaan. But this is 
also untenable. For the same term is used for the 
western bank in several places,! and sometimes of both 
banks in the same chapter. And therefore no infer- 
ence as to the position of the writer, and hence as to 
the date of the book, can be drawn from either of these 
expressions. 

On the other hand, there are several signs of early 
date, for the Pentateuch contains a variety of archaisms. 


a2i.2., Deut, 11. 303 Josh. 12. 7. 
2 E.g., eastern in Deut. 3. 8; Josh. 9. 10; and western in Deut. 
3. 20, 25; Josh. 9. 1. 


184 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. —— cuHap. ix. 


Of course, most of these can only be understood by a 
Hebrew scholar (which the present writer does not 
profess to be); but this is the less to be regretted, 
because, I believe, the fact is undisputed. We will 
therefore give a couple of examples only, which are 
plain to the English reader. The pronoun for he is 
commonly used throughout the Pentateuch (including 
Deuteronomy) both for male and female ; while in the 
later writings it is confined to males, the females being 
expressed by a derived form which is very seldom used 
in the Pentateuch. Similarly, the word for youth is 
used in the Pentateuch for both sexes, though after- 
wards restricted to males only, the female being again 
expressed by a derived form. These differences, though 
small, are very significant, and they clearly show that 
the language was at a less developed, and therefore 
earlier, stage in the Pentateuch than in the rest of 
the Old Testament. 

It is, however, further urged in support of the date- 
date theory that the language of the Pentateuch, when 
carefully examined, shows that it had several authors ; 
as the same words, or groups of words, occur in different 
passages all through the book. And this, combined 
with slight variations of style, and other peculiarities, 
have led some critics to split up the book into a number 
of different writings, which they assign to a number 
of unknown writers from the ninth century B.C. on- 


wards. For instance, to take a passage where only 


three writers are supposed to be involved, Exod. 7, 
14-25. These twelve verses seem to the ordinary 
reader a straightforward narrative, but they have 


nish omnbte* hag 


THE EXODUS. 185 


been thus split up. Verses I9, 22, and parts of 
20, 2I, are assigned to P, the supposed writer of the. 
Priestly Code of Laws ; v. 24 and parts of 17, 20, 21, 
to EF; and the remainder to J ; the two latter writers 
being thus named from their generally describing the 
Deity as Elohim and Jehovah (translated God, and 
Lord) respectively. 

Fortunately, we need not discuss the minute and 
complicated arguments on which all this rests, for the 
Pentateuch, as we have seen, has strong claims to a 
contemporary origin. And if so, it matters little 
whether it was the work of one or more writers ; 
though the idea of their writings being so hopelessly 
intermixed seems in any case to be most improbable. 
And there are at least two plain and simple arguments 
against it. 

. The first is that the so-called Egypticity of the 
narrative extends to all the parts J, E, and P; as well 
as to Deuteronomy, which these critics assign to a 
different author again. And while it is difficult enough 
to believe that even one writer in Canaan should have 
possessed this intimate knowledge of Egypt, it is far 
- more difficult to believe that several should have done so. 

The second is that parallel passages to the supposed 
two narratives of the Flood, ascribed to J and P (and 
which are thought to occur alternately nineteen times | 
in Gen. 7.-8.) have been found fogethey in an old 
Babylonian story of the Flood, centuries before the 
time of Moses; and also in layers corresponding to 


1 Priver’s Introduction to Literature of Old Testament, sixth 
edition, 1897, p. 24. : 


186 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cnap. Ix, 


J and P ; and this of course makes the theory still more 
unlikely. For then we must assume that J first got 
hold of this Babylonian story, and appropriated 
certain portions of it, freeing it from its absurd and 
polytheistic elements ; that some time later P did the 
same, choosing, however, other portions of the story, 
and that long afterwards these two narratives were 
combined together again in our Genesis ; and all this 
is, to say the least, very improbable. 

Of course no one denies that Moses may, and prob- 
ably did in some cases avail himself of previous docu- 
ments, one of these, ‘ The Book of the Wars of the 
Lord,’ being quoted in Num. 21. 14, and others are 
doubtless included in the narratives of Genesis, as 
indeed they must be, if these are in any sense con- 
temporary history. While quite recently (rg02) it 
has been found that some of the Jaws are also much 
older than Moses ; as they occur (with slight differ- 


ences) in the code of Hammurabi of Babylon, probably. 


the Amraphel of Gen. 14. 

Nor on the other hand can it be denied that some addt- 
tions have been made to the Pentateuch since the time of 
Moses.* The most important is the list of Edomite kings, 
who are said to have reigned before there reigned any 
king over the children of Israel, which brings the passage 
down to the time of Saul at least. But it is probably 
a later insertion, since the dukes of Edom mentioned 
in vv. 40-43 seem naturally to follow those of Seir 


1 Sayce’s Monument Facts, 1904, p. 20 ; Driver’s Book of Genesis, 


1905, pp. 89-95, 107. 
2 Gen. 36. 31-39; 12.6; 13. 7; Exod. 16. 36. 


= Se 


THE EXODUS. 187 


in vv. 29, 30 ; as they are referred to in a similar manner 
and not like the intervening kings. There are also two 
passages referring to Abraham, after which it is added 
the Canaanite was then in the land. This was plainly 
to prevent anyone thinking that the country was then 
uninhabited ; and the notes must therefore have been 
written after the conquest of the land by Joshua. But 
they also appear to be subsequent additions ; and if 
so, this would point to an earlier date for the original 
narrative, which was written when such explanations 
were thought unnecessary. And exactly the same 
may be said as to the note on the omer, that it is the 
tenth part of an ephah. This was evidently a later 
addition, when the omer had fallen into disuse and 
needed explanation. 

With regard to these and other slight additions,! it 
must be remembered that it was the custom in ancient 
times for notes on a previous document to be incor- 
porated in the text, and not put at the bottom of the 
page, or at the end of the book, as at present. And, 
hence, adding such notes did not imply any deception 
on the part of the subsequent editor ; he was merely 
trying to make the original sense more easily under- 
stood ; and they may all be omitted without breaking 
the continuity of the narrative. It thus differs alto- 
gether from composing a whole document, and falsely 
ascribing it to some earlier writer, which would entirely 
destroy our confidence in it. Indeed, on the late-date 
theory, it is difficult to see how the Pentateuch can 
have any historical value whatever. 

1 Deut. 2. 10-12, 20-23 S514 33,34. 


188 THE TRUTH OF: CHRISTIANITY..." VeHAP Ix; 


(2.) The ignorance of tts laws. 

Passing on now to the next argument for a late date, 
it is urged that the laws of the Pentateuch cannot 
really have been written by Moses, since, judging 
from the other Old Testament Books, they seem to 
have been unknown for many centuries after his time. 
And the evidence adduced in support of this is the 
silence of early writers as to these laws, and the observ- 
ance of practices tnconsistent with them. 

But with regard to the former, none of the earliest 
books, either historical or prophetical, are really silent 
as to the laws, though they do not allude to them as 
often as we might think probable. The first of the 
historical books is Joshua ; but this, though it expressly 
refers to written Mosaic laws,! cannot be appealed to 
as an independent witness, since hostile critics believe 
that it forms one work with the Pentateuch, so the 
two earliest books are Judges and 1 Samuel. 

In Judges the references are admittedly few,? which 
is not perhaps surprising considering the unsettled 
state of the country ; but in 1 Samuel they are much 
more numerous, the first six chapters alone supplying 
over a dozen points of agreement.? And so in regard 
to the prophetical books. Two of the earliest of these 
are Hosea and Amos, and they both contain numerous 
references, one of which is to written laws.4 

All this is abundant evidence as to the existence of 
some law and ritual very like what we now find in 


te Joshi*ly 778) 135: 94156: 2 Judges 18. 31; 20. 27, 28 ; 21. 19. 

Potesam..1:*3, 24°55 2, te-gog oa hand, 14. 8, Te; 

Fi Hog..2:.11.5'3.\4 3 4/4560 0/62 _8.4, 12, 13; 9.43:12.9; Amos 
Bement: 4.4, 5% 0. 21-25 os, hs 


THE EXODUS. 189 


the Pentateuch. And though many of the references 
are of a disparaging nature, this very fact that the 
prophets found it necessary to protest against ritual 
being placed above morality shows not only that the 
ritual then existed, but that it was believed to have had 
a Divine origin, which they themselves imply in some 
cases. And similar evidence is afforded by most of the 
other prophets, and also of course by the later his- 
torical books, David, for instance, alluding to the 
written law of Moses, and as if it was well known.? 
Moreover, the references are all <znctdental. The 
writers nowhere give a list of Mosaic laws ; the allusions 
to them turn up, as it were, by accident; and this 
makes it almost certain that many other laws must 
have been equally well known without being alluded to 
at all. 

The chief counter-argument is from the statement in 
Jeremiah, that God did not command the Israelites 
concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices when He 
brought them out of the land of Egypt.2 But the 
context certainly implies that it was placing these 
before obedience that God condemned ; and Hosea in 
a similar passage declares this to be the case, and that 
God’s not desiring sacrifice means His not caring so 
- much about it, as about other things (I desire mercy 
and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than 
burnt offerings). Both passages are mere echoes of 
the older saying, To obey ts better than sacrtfice.® 

With regard t6 the tnconststent practices, the most 
important of these were the sacrifices not being confined 


1 y Kings 2. 3. a Jer ta 22. 3 Hosea:6,:6;. 1Sam1b7 22, 


Igo THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, IX. 


to one place, and their being offered by laymen, as 
well as some minor points, such as the erection of 
pillars. As to the former, the principle of both the 
earlier and later laws was that the place of sacrifice 
should be of Divine appointment, where Jehovah: had 
chosen to record His name, and not selected by the 
worshippers themselves.t. In Exodus it is naturally 
implied that there should be many such places, as the 
Israelites were then only beginning their wanderings ; 
and in Deuteronomy that there should be only one, 
as they were then about to settle in Canaan. 

Now, the manner in which this place was made known 
was by the presence of the ark : wherever the ark was, 
there was the tabernacle, and the place for Divine wor- 
ship. And hence when the ark was in the hands of the 
Philistines, the law could not be obeyed. But as soon 
as It was recovered, the law again assumed its autho- 
rity, and the sanctuary at Jerusalem was the only one 
recognised. In later times, no doubt, the worship at 
high places was contrary to the law; but this is men- 
tioned as a sin, and Hezekiah-is specially commended 
for removing these places, and for keeping the com- 
mandments which the Lord commanded Moses2 

The recent discovery, however (1907), that there 
was a Jewish Temple of Jehovah at Syene in Egypt, 
with sacrifices, as early as the sixth century B.c., and 
that it had the full approval of the authorities at Jeru- 
salem, makes it doubtful if the law as to the one sanc- 
tuary was ever considered to be absolutely binding. 


1 Exod. 20. 24 ;* Deut. 12. re 
2 1 Kings 3, 2; 22. 43; 2 Kings. 18. 4-6. 


THE EXODUS, IQI 


Indeed, Deuteronomy itself recognises that there may 
be exceptions to the rule, as it authorises an altar on 
Mount Ebal on one occasion.! 

The second practice, that of laymen offering sacri- 
fices, can generally be explained by the simple rule that 
acts done by subordinates are often ascribed to their 
superiors. Thus, at the dedication of the Temple, 
Solomon is said to have offered 22,000 oxen and 
120,000 sheep, though they cannot have been offered 
with his own hands. Similarly, when David and 
Solomon are said elsewhere to have offered sacrifices, 
we may fairly assume that, as a rule, they only pro- 
vided and ordered them, the actual ministers being 
doubtless priests. There are, it is true, some instances 
_where the above explanations do not apply, such as 
those of Gideon, Samuel, and Elijah. But these were 
all under special and exceptional circumstances, and 
in some of them the offering of sacrifice was directly 
enjoined by God.?, Thus the so-called zgnorance of the 
laws in later days is nothing like sufficient to show 
that they were not then in existence ; it merely shows 
that they were often not obeyed. 

(3.) The finding of Deuteronomy. 

Lastly we have the finding of the Book of the Law 
(probably Deuteronomy) when the temple was being 
repaired in the reign of Josiah, about B.c. 621, and 
which is of course regarded by some critics as its first 
publication.* But this is a needless assumption, for 
there is no hint that either the king or the people were 
surprised at such a book being found, but only at what 

1 Deut. 27. 5-7. s Ee., Judges 6, 26. 3 2 Kings 22. 


ns ©. 


- 


£92.55 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX, 


it contained. And as they proceeded at once to carry 
out its directions, this seems rather to show that they 
knew there was such a book all the time, only they had 
never before read it. And this is easily accounted for, as 
most copies would have been destroyed by the previous 
wicked kings Manasseh and Amon. On the other hand, 
the new invention of a hitherto unsuspected law-book 
could scarcely have gained such immediate and ready 
obedience. Nor is it easy to see why, if Deuteronomy 
was invented at that time, it should have contained so_ 
many obsolete and useless instructions; such as the 
order to destroy the Canaanites, when there were no 
Canaanites left to destroy ; and still less how it could 
have been twice quoted in the previous history.! 

On the whole, then, none of these arguments for a 
late date can be looked upon as at all conclusive, and 
we therefore decide that this theory is not only very 
improbable in any case, but quite untenable in face 
of the strong evidence on the other side. 

(D.) CONCLUSION. 

Having now shown that the Pentateuch appears to 
date from the time of Moses, it matters little as to who 


was the actual writer, though that the greater part ~ 


should have been written by Moses himself is plainly 
the most probable view. And as we have seen, this is 
positively asserted in the book itself. Moreover his 
frequent references to his own exclusion from Canaan, 
and his pathetic prayer on the subject, seem to have a 
very genuine tone about them. And so have some 


1 Deut. 20. 17 ; 1 Kings 11. 2 ; 2 Kings 14. 6 ; Deut. 7. 3-4 ; 24. 16. 
Pkt e.| Dent) 3229-268 ..372 4. 21 $1...2. 


THE EXODUS. 193 


individual remarks when carefully considered ; such as 
_ that Moses ‘looked this way and that way’ before 
Slaying the Egyptian. Who but one, who vividly 
remembered the incident, would have thought it worth 
noting that he took such an obvious precaution ? 
And would anyone else (especially in later days) have 
put into his mouth the bitter complaint that God had 
broken His promise, and not delivered the people ?+ 

And his authorship is further confirmed by the fact 
that so little is said in his praise. His faults are indeed 
narrated quite candidly, but nothing is said in admira- 
tion of the great leader’s courage, ability, and character, 
till the closing verses of Deuteronomy. These were 
evidently written by someone else, and show what we 
might have expected had the earlier part been the work 
of anyone but Moses himself. Nor is there anything 
surprising in his writing in the third person, as numbers 
of other men—Ceesar, for instance—have done the same. 

But now comes the important point. If the Penta- 
teuch is a contemporary document, can we reject the 
miracles which it records? Can we imagine, for 
instance, a contemporary writer describing the Ten 
Plagues, or the Passage of the Red Sea, if nothing of 
the kind had occurred ?. The events, if true, must. 
have been public, notorious, and well known at the 
time; and if untrue, no contemporary would have 
thought of inventing them. While, if they were true, 
it matters little whether they were evidential miracles 
in the strict sense, or whether, as is more likely, they 
were what we have called superhuman coincidences, 

1 Exod. 2. 12.45.5.23. 
13 


194 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. | © cHAp. 1x. _ 


Many of the Ten Plagues, for instance, probably : 


belonged to this latter class ; but their coming on with 
such unprecedented violence, and in each case immedi- 
ately following the words of Moses, could not have been 
due to accident. } 

Similarly in regard to the Passage of the Red Sea. 
The water, we are told, was driven back by a strong 
east wind, lasting all night; and this was doubtless 
due to natural causes, though, in common with other 
natural events, it is in the Bible ascribed to God. And 
the statement, the waters were a wall unto them, need 
not be pressed literally, as meaning that the waters 
stood up vertically ; it may only mean here (as it ob- 


viously does in some other cases), that the waters were — 


a defence on each side, and secured them from flank 
attacks.1 And as, considering their immense numbers, 
they must have advanced in several parallel columns, 
probably half a mile wide, this certainly seems the more 
-likely view. 

And what makes it still more probable is that much 
‘the same thing occurred in this very neighbourhood 
in recent times. For in January, 1882, a large expanse 


of water, about 5 feet deep, near the Suez Canal, was 


subjected to such a strong gale from the east (the very 
direction mentioned in Genesis), that next morning it 
had been entirely driven away, and men were walking 
-about on the mud, where the day before the fishing- 


boats had been floating. Moreover, on this theory, the 


1 Exod. 14. 21, 22; Nahum 3. 8; 1 Sam. 25. 16. 
2 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxviii., p. 268, seit as 


vouched for by Major-General Tulloch, who was there on duty at 
the time. 


, 


THE EXODUS. 195 


miracle would not lose any of its evidential value, since 
the fact of such a strip of dry land being formed just 
when and where the Israelites so much wanted it, and 
then being suddenly covered again, through the wind 
changing round to the west (which it must have done 
for the dead Egyptians to have been cast up on the 
east side)’, would be a coincidence far too improbable 
to be accidental. 
The immense number of the Israelites just alluded 
to, some 600,000 men, besides women and children,? or 
probably over two million altogether, is no doubt a 
serious difficulty ; as anyone can see, who will take the 
trouble to calculate the space they would require on 
the march, or in camp. If we assume, for instance 
that they crossed the arm of the Red Sea in, say, forty 
_ parallel columns, these would still have to be of enor- 
mous length to contain 50,000 persons each, with their 
flocks and herds. And the whole narrative is opposed 
to such huge, unwieldy masses. Most critics are con- 
sequently of opinion that the number has, somehow 
or other, got exaggerated. This has certainly been the 
case with some other numbers in the Old Testament 
(see Chapter X.), and it would afford the most obvious 
solution, but for the detailed censuses in Num. 1. and 
26., each of which totals up to about 600,000 men. 
Perhaps the best explanation is that recently sug- 
gested by Professor Flinders Petrie, that the word trans- 
fated thousands should be families ;3 so that the tribe 
of Reuben, for instance,4 instead of having forty-six 
1 Exod. 14. 30. 7 ExX00 AID a" 
3 Expositor, Aug., 1905. 4 Num. 1. 21. 
I13—2 


196 THE TRUTH *OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX. 


thousand five hundred men, would have forty-six 
families, (making about) five hundred men. The chief 
arguments in favour of. this are, first, that the same 
word is used in Judges 6. 15, where it so obviously 
means family and not thousand, that it is so trans- » 
lated in both the Authorised and Revised Versions ; 
and secondly, that the number of men in a family, on 
_ this supposition, always works out to a reasonable pro- 
portion, allowing for servants, from five to seventeen. 
This is of course due to the number given for the 
hundreds never being 0 or I, which would work out 
too few ; or 8 or 9, which would work out too many ; 
but always one of the six other digits. And as there 
were two censuses, with twelve tribes in each, the 
chance of this occurring every time, if the figures were 
an ordinary census (when any one digit would be as 
likely as any other), would be (,%)™, or less than I in 
200,000. On this theory the total number of fighting 
men would be reduced to about 5,600, which is much 
more intelligible. But some other passages scarcely 
seem capable of this interpretation, so it must be 
admitted that the number forms a difficulty, whatever 
view we adopt. 

There is only one other important argument against 
the truthfulness of the narrative, which is the entire 
absence of any confirming evidence from other sources. 
Of course, in regard to the Exodus itself, if the events 
were such as are recorded in the Pentateuch, the 
Egyptians must have been very much ashamed of 
themselves, and would be the last persons to refer to 
them. But still, considering the number of the 


THE EXODUS. : 197 


Israelites, and the centuries they stayed in Egypt, 
we might expect to find some allusions to them on 
Egyptian monuments. And perhaps we shall some 
day, though up to the present none have been dis- 
covered that are at all conclusive. 

The excavations, however, that were made at Tel-el- 
Muskhuta in 1883 strikingly confirm a portion of the 
narrative. For this turns out to be Pithom, one of 
the store cities said to have been built by the Israelites : 
and we now learn not only that there was such a place, 
and that it was a store city, evidently intended for 
military supplies, being near the frontier, but that it 
was probably founded by Rameses II., who has long 
been thought to be the Pharaoh who so oppressed the 
Israelites.2, And nearly its whole extent is occupied 
by the treasure chambers, which are divided by strong 
brick walls ; some of the bricks being made with straw, 
some with fragments of reed or stubble used instead, 
and some without any straw at all. And, unlike the 
usual Egyptian custom, the walls are built with mortar, 
which is expressly mentioned in the Bible.® 

It must also be remembered that the subsequent 
history of the Israelites undoubtedly helps to confirm 
_ the Exodus. For that event occupied a unique place 
in their feelings, writings, and religion. Their religion 
was indeed based on it, as it comes at the beginning 
of the Decalogue ; and their most characteristic insti- 


tution, the Passover, was directly associated with it, 


1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xviii., p. 85. 

2 Many critics, however, now consider that this was Thothmes Tit. 
which suits the Biblical dates much better. . 

Sees xod, 1. 11, 14: 6. 12. 


198 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. IX. 


even in name, and it is hard to see how so striking a 
ceremony could have been founded on mere fiction. 
A document might be forged, but not a memorial 
ordinance like this. So that even had the Pentateuch 
never been written, the subsequent writings and religion 
of the Israelites would still have formed a strong, 
though indirect, argument in favour of some miraculous 
deliverance from Egypt. 

And this is further confirmed by the fact that scarcely 
anyone doubts that the Israelites were in bondage 
there at some time, and did somehow or other get away, 
and such a deliverance is not likely to have been for- 
gotten ; and yet if it did not occur in the way recorded 
in Exodus, there is not the slightest trace or tradition 
of it anywhere. 

These objections, then, are quite insufficient to in- 
validate the strong evidence of the Pentateuch ; and 
we therefore conclude in this chapter that it seems 
probable that the ovigin of the Jewish religion was 
attested by miracles. 


CHAPTER X. 
THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES. 


(A.) THE LATER OLD TESTAMENT Books. 
Arguments for and against their genuineness. 


(1.) Undesigned coincidences; an example as to the 
rebellion of Korah. 

(2.) Their alleged mistakes ; unimportant. 

(3.) The effect of modern discoveries ; these have on the 
whole confirmed their accuracy. 


(B.) THE OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES. 


(1.) Their credibility ; this can scarcely be disputed, if 
miracles at all are credible; some difficulties, the 
silence of the sun and moon ; trivial and diabolical 
miracles. 

(2.) Their truthfulness ; list of eight public miracles, two 
examples, Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and 
the destruction of the Assyrian army, considered in 
detail ; conclusion. 


HAVING now examined the origin of the Jewish 
Religion, we have next to consider its history ; which 
also claims to have been attested by miracles. So we 
will first offer a few remarks as to the genuineness of 
the Old Testament Books, from Joshua onwards; and 
then consider some of the miracles which they record. 
(A.) THE LATER OLp TESTAMENT Books. 

Now, the arguments as to the genuineness of these 
Books need not be discussed at length, since we have 
199 


200 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, X. 


already decided in favour of that of the Pentateuch, 
and nearly all critics who admit the one, admit the 
other. Suffice it, then, to say that we have in their 
favour first of all the universal tradition of the Jews, 
who, being the writers and custodians of these books, 
had the best possible means of knowing, and who 
reverenced them to such an extent that they could 
have had no doubt whatever as to their authenticity. 

Secondly, there are a variety of internal marks of 
genuineness, such as undesigned coincidences, and the 
minute and graphic manner in which several of the 
events (including some of the miracles) are described ; 
and which seems quite beyond the power of invention 
in those early days. While lastly, there is the moral 
argument : many of the books, especially the Prophets, 
are not anonymous, but claim to have been written 
by certain men and at certain times. And therefore, 
unless genuine, they must be deliberate frauds ; 
executed, moreover, by men whose one object seems 
to have been to inculcate moral virtues, such as truth- 
fulness. 

On the other hand, the arguments against their 
genuineness are the a friori one, that they record 
miraculous events, which is supported by the historical 
one, that they contain various slight inaccuracies, as 
well as differences in style and language. And here, 
as in so many other cases, the former seems to be the 
veason for discrediting the books, the latter merely the 
excuse. We do not propose to examine these argu- 
ments in detail, but a few words may be said on 
three subjects, that of undesigned coincidences, the 


JEWISH MIRACLES. 201 


importance of which is not obvious at first sight ; the 
alleged mistakes in the Old Testament ; and the effect 
of modern discovertes. 

(1.) Undesigned coincidences. 

Now, if we find two statements regarding an event, 
or series of events, which, though not identical, are 
yet perfectly consistent, this agreement must be either 
accidental or not accidental. An agreement which is 
too minute in detail to be accidental we will call a 
coincidence, and this of necessity implies that the state- 
ments are somehow connected together. If the alleged 
events are true, this connection may lie between the » 
facts themselves, each writer having independent know- 
ledge of these; and hence their statements being in 
perfect though unintentional agreement. But if the 
alleged events are not true, then this connection must 
lie between the writers, either one of them making his 
account agree with the other, or else both deriving 
their information from a common source. In the 
former case, there would be intentional agreement 
between the writers ; in the latter, between the various 
parts of the original account. In any case, there 
would be designed agreement somewhere ; for, to put 
it shortly, the events, being imaginary, would not fit 
together of necessity, nor by accident, which is 
excluded, and hence must do so by design. 

This has been otherwise expressed by saying that 
truth is necessarily consistent, but falsehood is not so; 
and therefore, while consistency in truth may be un- 
designed, consistency in falsehood can only result from 
design. And from this it follows that an undesigned 


202 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. ~ CHAP. X,. 


coincidence between two statements — provided of 
course we are fully convinced that it is a coincidence, 
and that it is undesigned—is a sure sign of truthfulness. 
It shows, moreover, that both writers possessed inde- 
pendent knowledge of the event, and were both telling 
the truth. And of course the same argument applies 
if the two statements are made by the same writer, 
though in this case there is.a greater presumption that 
the agreement is not undesigned. And it should be 
noticed that the more indirect and unobtrusive is the 
agreement so much the stronger is the argument, while 
the more obvious the agreement the weaker the argu- 
ment. 

Having now explained the great value of undesigned 
coincidences, we will consider a single example in 
detail, and select that referring to the rebellion of 
Koran, Dathan, and Abiram, as this is connected with 
an important miracle ; though it followed so soon after 
the Exodus, that it might have been considered in the 
last chapter. Now Korah, we are told,! was a Levite 
of the family of Kohath, and the other two were 
Reubenites ; and from incidental notices in another 
part of the book, we learn the position of the tents of 
these men. The Kohathites were to the south of the 
central Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, on an inner 
line of tents, while the Reubenites were also to the 
south, though on an outer line of tents. 

This explains how easy it was for the leaders to form 
a secret conspiracy against Moses, as they could consult 
together without passing through any other tribe. It - 


4s Nam 218.) )-2)91b) 175 33;986% 


JEWISH MIRACLES. 203 


explains how, when Moses was talking to Korah (v. 8), 
he had to send for Dathan and Abiram (v. 12), who 
refused to come ; and how next morning (v. 16) Moses 
left the central Tabernacle (or Tent of Meeting) where 
the men had assembled to offer incense, and went unto 
Dathan and Abiram (v. 25). It explains how, later on, 
the ¢ents of Dathan and Abiram are twice mentioned, 
while that of the leading conspirator, Korah, is 
~ strangely omitted (v. 26, 27). It explains how the 
families of these two were destroyed, though no men- 
tion is made of that of Korah, since the destruction was 
probably limited to the tents of Dathan and Abiram, 
who were brothers, and the schismatical tabernacle 
which had been erected alongside, and from which 
alone the rest of the people were told to depart (v. 26). 
(This must not be confused with the central Tabernacle 
where the men who offered incense were afterwards 
destroyed, probably by lightning.) We may therefore 
conclude that Korah’s family was not destroyed, 
since their tent, being on the inner line, was at some 
distance. And this accounts for the mention of 
Dathan and Abiram alone in Deut. 11. 6, as well as 
for what some have thought to be a discrepancy in 
Num. 26. 11, where we read that the children of Korah 
did not die. In fact, the position of these tents is 
the key to the narrative throughout, though we are 
left to discover it for ourselves. 

Now if the account is true and written by a contem- 
porary, all is plain ; for truth, as said before, is neces- 
sarily consistent. But if the whole story is a late 
fiction, all this agreement in various places is, to say the 


204 THE TRUTH. OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. X. 


least, very remarkable. Can we imagine a writer of 
fiction accidentally arranging these details in different 
parts of his book, which fit together so perfectly ? Or 
can we imagine his doing so tntentionally, and yet never 
hinting at the agreement himself, but leaving it so un- 
obtrusive that not one reader in a thousand ever 
discovers it? This single instance may be taken as a 
sample of numerous others which have been noticed 
all through the Bible ; and they certainly tend to show - 
its accuracy. 

(2.) Their alleged mistakes. 

We pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the Old 
Testament, and considering the long period covered, 
and the variety of subjects dealt with, and often the 
same subject by various writers, the number of even 
apparent discrepancies is not very great; and it is 
beyond dispute that many of these can be explained 
satisfactorily, and doubtless many others could be so 
were our knowledge more complete. Moreover, they 
are, as arule, quite obvious, and have not been brought 
' to light by recent discoveries. And the fact that the 
scribes, who, from time to time, copied the documents, 
allowed these discrepancies to remain, just as they were, 
without attempting to reconcile them, shows with 
what reverence they regarded the books. It has no 
doubt left some blemishes in the Bible, which less 
scrupulous copyists might have removed; but it has 
added to our confidence that we have the original 
writings and not an ‘ improved’ edition of them. 

It is also beyond dispute that many, perhaps most, 
of the mistakes are numerical ones, such as the chron- 


JEWISH MIRACLES. ; 205 


ology in Kings and Chronicles, and the incredibly large 
numbers in some places.!. But these may be due to 
some copyist expressing the numbers in figures, instead 
of, as usual, in words; and the Hebrew figures, 7.e., 
the letters used as such, are very confusing. For 
instance, beth and caph mean 2 and 20, while daleth and 
vesh mean 4 and 200 respectively ; and yet they are 
very much alike even in print, as the English reader 
can see in the headings of Ps. 119, Rev. Vers. Of 
course, when used as letters the rest of the word shows 
which is intended, but when used as numbers there is 
no check. Moreover, a letter expressing a small num- 
ber, such as 3, is converted into 3,000 by merely adding 
two dots. Any other mistakes there may be are only 
such as any good historian might make, and are 
quite insufficient to raise any general distrust of the 
books. ! 

(3.) The effect of modern discovertes. 

Lastly, as to the effect of modern discoveries in 
Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, and elsewhere on the accu- 
racy of the Old Testament. In the case of the Penta- 
teuch, as we have seen, there is very little direct 
evidence either way ; but it is otherwise with regard 
to some of the later books. 

In the first place, and this is very important, modern 
discoveries have completely changed what was formerly 
the chief argument on the subject. It used to be 
thought that the Jews were a kind of half-savage nation, 
living at a time when civilization was almost unknown, 
and when literary records could scarcely be expected. 

1 E.g., 1 Sam. 6. 19; 1 Kings 20. 30; 2 Chron. 14. 8, 9. 


’ 


200 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. X. 


But we now know that it was precisely the opposite. 
The period of Jewish history from the time of Moses 
onwards was distinctly a literary age. In Egypt, 
Babylonia, Syria, and elsewhere it was the custom, 
and had been for centuries, to chronicle all important 
events, at least all those that were creditable to the 
persons concerned ; so that it is almost certain that 
the Jews, like the surrounding nations, had_ their 
historians. In every age conquerors have loved to 
record their conquests, and why should the Jews alone 
have been an exception ? 

And'yet the historical books of the Old Testament 
have no competitors. If, then, we deny that these are 
in the main a contemporary record, we must either 
assume that the Jews, unlike the surrounding nations, 
had no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely ; 
or else that their works were superseded in later days 
by other and less reliable accounts, which were univer- 
sally mistaken for the originals, and this seems equally 
improbable. 

Passing on now to the evidence in detail, it may be 
divided into two classes, geographical and _ historical. 
In the first place the geography of Palestine has been 
shown to be minutely accurate. But this of itself does 
not prove the Old Testament Books to be authentic, 
but merely that they were written by Jews who knew 
the country intimately. It does, however, raise a 
presumption in their favour, for late forgeries are very 
liable to mistakes of all kinds, while accuracy in small 
and unimportant details inspires confidence in a book. 
And much the same may be said of the historical 


JEWISH MIRACLES. 207 


notices. The monumental records of the Kings of Judah 
and Israel have not at present been discovered, but we 
can often check the history by the records of other 
countries ; and these are as a rule in perfect agreement, 
not only as to the actual facts, but as to the society, 
customs, state of civilisation, etc., of the period. But 
this again does not prove the authenticity of the 
Books, though it also raises a presumption in their 
favour. 

In some cases, however, the evidence is stronger 
than this, one of the best known instances being 
Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar. He states that the 
last king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar’s son, called 
Belshazzar, who was slain at night when the city was 
captured (about B.c. 538). But according to Berosus, 
who, though he only wrote about the third century 
B.c., was till recently our chief authority, all this 
appears to be wrong. The last king of Babylon was a 
usurper called Nabonidus, and any such person as 
Belshazzar is quite unknown. And so matters re- 
mained till some cuneiform inscriptions were discovered 
in 1854. 

From these it appears that Belshazzar was the eldest 
son of Nabonidus, and was apparently associated with 
him in the government ; though there is no proof that he 
ever had the title of King, unless he is the same as 
one Mardukshazzar, about this time (not otherwise 
identified), which is not unlikely, as we know Marduk 
was sometimes called Bel—i.e., Baal, or Lord. And 
another inscription, somewhat mutilated, seems to 
show that he was slain at Babylon in a night assault 


208 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. “CHAP. X. 


upon the city, as described by Daniel, some months 
after Nabonidus had been taken prisoner. | 
As to his relationship with Nebuchadnezzar we learn 
that the mother of Nabonidus was an important person, 
so she was very likely the daughter of that monarch ; 
or possibly the usurper may have strengthened his 
claim by the common expedient of marrying a royal 
princess ; and there certainly seems to have been som 
connection between the families, as we know from the 
inscriptions that Nabonidus had a younger son called 
- Nebuchadnezzar. In either case, Belshazzar would be 
a descendant of the former Nebuchadnezzar ; and as the 
same word is used in Aramaic for father and grandfather 
(see margin of Authorised Version), all the apparent — | 
mistakes would vanish. | 
And, of course, if Daniel himself wrote the book, he 
would have known all about Belshazzar; however soon 
afterwards it was forgotten. But, if the book was a 
forgery, written by a Jew in Palestine about B.c. 160, 
which is the rationalistic theory, as the wars between 
Egypt and Syria up to that date are clearly foretold, 
how was it that he knew the name of Belshazzar at all, 
or anything about him, when such a person was un- 
known to previous historians ? Plainly, then, this is a 
distinct argument in favour of the contemporary date 
of the book. 
And much the same may be said of Isaiah’s mention 
of Sargon of Assyria, who is stated to have taken Ash- 
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxxviii., 1906, p. 28; 


Pinches’ Old Testament in Light of Historical Records, 1902, Pp. 415, 
54. 


JEWISH MIRACLES. 200 


dod. And yet the very existence of such a king was 
unknown to secular history, till the last century ; 
when his palace was discovered at Khorsabad, with 
inscriptions relating, among other things, his capture 
of Ashdod.! 

We have now briefly indicated the reasons for 
thinking that the books of the Old Testament are on 
the whole authentic and contemporary records. What, 
then, is the vdlue of the evidence they afford as to the 
history of the Jewish Religion having been attested by 
miracles ? | 

(B.) THE OLrp TESTAMENT MIRACLES. 

We will include under this term both superhuman 
coincidences and evidential miracles in the strict sense : 
and they occur all through the historical books of the 
Old Testament. But as these cover nearly a thousand 
years, and presumably all important miracles are 
recorded, they were not of very frequent occurrence. 
A few of them have been already noticed in the last 
chapter, but we must now discuss them more fully, 
first considering whether they are credible, and then 
whether they are true. 

(1.) Their credibility. 

Now this can scarcely be disputed, provided miracles 
at all are credible, which we have already admitted, 
since scientific difficulties affect all miracles equally ; 
and of course the Superhuman Coincidences present 
no difficulties of this kind whatever. Among these 
may be mentioned the destruction of Korah, the 
falling of the walls of Jericho, probably due to an 

* Isa. 20. 1. Orr’s Problem of Old Test., 1906, p. 399. 
7 


210 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP YX... 


earthquake ; the lightning which struck Elijah’s sacri- 
fice: several cases of recovery from sickness; and 
many others, including some which appear at first 
sight to be strictly miraculous. 

One of these we will consider in detail, because it is 
usually misunderstood, and is in consequence declared 
by some critics to be so hopelessly incredible, as to 
seriously compromise the whole Religion. This is the 
‘ silence’ (or standing still) of the sun and moon,* which 
is often thought to involve an entire dislocation of the 
solar system, due to the earth’s rotation being stopped, 
thus causing the sun and moon to apparently stand 
still. And it is justly urged that a miracle on so vast 
a scale, even if possible, is quite out of proportion to the 
end in view, which was merely the slaughter of a few 
Canaanites. But there is another, and far more prob- 
able explanation of the miracle. 

It is that instead of being one of prolonged light, the 
sun remaining visible after it should have set, it was 
really one of prolonged darkness ; the sun, which had 
been hidden by thick clouds, being just about to shine 
forth, when Joshua prayed to the Lord that it might 
be silent, 1.e., remain obscured behind the clouds, which 
it did during the rest of the day. The Hebrew ap- 
pears to be capable of either meaning. For the crucial 
word translated stand still is literally be stlent (see 
margin), both in verses 12 and 13; and while this is 
very applicable to the sun’s remaining obscured by 
clouds during the day, it could scarcely be used of its 
continuing to shine at night. 


1 Josh. 10, 12-14. 


JEWISH MIRACLES, - ait 


On the other hand, the rest of the passage seems to 
favour the ordinary view. But as it is a quotation 
from the poetical book of Jashar (now lost), a certain 
amount of figurative language must be allowed for. 
And anyhow, if we admit that this is what Joshua 
prayed for, that the sun and moon should remain 
silent or obscured, the rest of the passage can only mean 
that this is what took place. And it may be men- 
tioned that, as early as the fourteenth century, the 
Jewish commentator Rabbi Levi ben Gershon main- 
tained that the words did not mean that the sun and 
moon literally stood still, or in any way altered their 
motion, though it is only fair to add that this was not 
the general view.! 

Moreover, even if the word did mean stand still, 
Joshua would only be likely to have asked for the sun 
and moon to stand still, if they were apparently 
moving ; and they only move fast enough to be ap- 
parent when they are just coming out from behind 
a dense bank of clouds, due, of course, to the clouds 
really moving. And to stand still in such a case, 
would mean to stay behind the clouds, and remain 
obscured, the same sense as before. And the words 
could then have had an immediate effect ; visible at 
once to all the people, which certainly seems implied 
in the narrative, and which would not have been the 
case on the ordinary view. 

Assuming, then, that either meaning is possible, a 
prolonged darkness is much the more probable for three 
* Numerous quotations are given in ‘ A Misunderstood Miraciey, 

_ by Rev. A. S. Palmer, 1887, pp. 103-107. 
I4—2 


212 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. X. 


reasons. To begin with, the miracle must have oc- 
curred in the early morning (Gibeon, where the sun was, 
being to the S.E. of the battlefield, and Ajalon, where 
the moon was, to the S.W.) ; and it is scarcely con- 
ceivable that Joshua, with the enemy already defeated, 
and nearly all the day before him, should have wished 
to have it prolonged. Secondly, just before the miracle 
there had been a very heavy thunderstorm, involving 
(as here required) thick clouds and a dark sky ; and 
this is stated to have been the chief cause of the 
enemy’s defeat. And therefore Joshua is more likely 
to have asked for a continuance of this storm, 7.¢., for 
prolonged darkness, than for light. Thirdly, the moon 
is mentioned as well as the sun, and, if Joshua wanted 
darkness, both would have to be silent; but if he 
wanted light, the mention of the moon as well as the 
sun was quite unnecessary. 

On the whole, then, the miracle seems to have been 
a superhuman coincidence between a prayer of Joshua 
and an extraordinary and unique thunderstorm, which 
caused the sun to remain sz/ent or invisible all day ; 
a coincidence, however, so remarkable, that, if true, 
it would have considerable value. And if the Canaan- 
ites were sun-worshippers (as many think probable), 
there was a peculiar fitness in the sun being obscured 
the whole day, and it would naturally lead to their 
utter confusion. 

Before we pass on we may notice two more general 
objections that are sometimes made to the Jewish 
miracles. ‘The first is that some of them were of a very 
trivial character, such as Elisha’s healing the waters of 


JEWISH MIRACLES. 213 


Jericho, increasing the widow’s oil, and making the 
iron axe-head to float ; and hence it is urged they are 
most improbable. And no doubt they would be so, if 
we regard them as mere acts of kindness to individual 
persons ; but if we regard them as so many signs to 
the Israelites (and through them to the rest of the 
world), that Elisha was God’s prophet, and that God 
was not a far-off God, but One who knew about and 
cared about the every-day troubles of his people, they 
are certainly not inappropriate. Indeed, if this was 
the end in view, they were precisely the kind of miracles 
most suited to attain thisend. And if some years later 
it was necessary to remind the people that though 
Elisha was dead, yet Elisha’s God was still living, and 
still took an interest in their welfare, then the miracle 
connected with the prophet’s bones also loses a good 
deal of its improbability.? 

The second and more important objection strikes at 
the evidential value of all the miracles. They could 
not, it is urged, have really attested any revelation from 
God, since the writers who describe them also describe 
other miracles, which, they say, were worked in opposi- 
tion to God’s agents. I have not met with a satis- 
factory explanation of these dtabolical miracles, as they 
are called ; and if such events were of frequent occur- 
rence in the Bible, they would form a great difficulty. 
But this is not the case. For if we exclude some 
doubtful instances, such as the raising of Samuel by the 
witch of Endor, and some general statements as to the 
powers of evil being able to perform marvels, there 


tra Kings. 2. 2213 6.06.) 6.56. ae in rob ame rs 


214 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. * CHAPS Xs 


remains only one instance in which we have any detailed 
facts to judge by. 

This is the case of the magicians of Egypt, who 
imitated some of the earlier miracles of Moses and 
Aaron. And even here the inference is doubtful, for 
we are expressly told that this was due to their en- 
chaniments, a term which might very possibly cover 
some feat of jugglery, as they knew beforehand what 
was wanted, and had time to prepare. While the fact 
that they tried and failed to imitate the next plague, 
which was done suddenly, and without previous notice ; 
and which they frankly confessed was a Divine miracle, 
makes this a very probable solution. Anyhow, it is 
little more than a one-text difficulty, and does not affect 
the Religion as a whole. We decide, then, that none 
of the Jewish miracles can be pronounced incredible ; 
though some of them no doubt seem very improbable. 

(2.) Thetr truthfulness. 

Now, of course, the miracles vary greatly in evi- 
dential value, the following being eight of the most 
important : 

The destruction of Korah, Num. 16. 

The passage of the Jordan, Josh. 3. 14-17. 

The capture of Jericho, Josh. 6. 6-20. 

Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18. 17-40. 

The cure of Naaman’s leprosy, 2 Kings 5. 10-27. 

The destruction of the Assyrian army, 2 Kings 19. 35. 

The shadow on the dial, 2 Kings 20. 8-11. 

The three men in the furnace, Dan. 3. 20-27. 

We will examine a couple of instances in detail and 


ek Dh ot 8 Sgt RSS NS) i ee) «Re Pee gas Bae 2 = 


JEWISH MIRACLES, 215 


select first Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel. This 
event is said to have occurred on the most public 
occasion possible, before the King of Israel and thou- 
sands of spectators. And asa miracle, or rather super- 
human coinctdence, it presents no difficulty whatever. 
The lightning which struck the sacrifice was doubtless 
due to natural causes; and yet, as before explained 
(Chapter VII.), this would not interfere with its 
evidential value. 

Moreover, it was avowedly a test case to definitely 
settle whether Jehovah was the true God or not. The 
nation, we learn, had long been in an undecided state. 
Some were worshippers of Jehovah, others of Baal: 
and these rival sacrifices were suggested for the express 
purpose of settling the point. And therefore, if 
miracles at all are credible, there could not have been a 
more appropriate occasion for one; while it was, for 
the time at least, thoroughly successful. All present 
were convinced that Jehovah was the true God, and, 
in accordance with the national law, the false prophets 

of Baal were immediately put to death. 

_ Now could any writer have described all this, even 
a century afterwards, if nothing of the kind had 
occurred? The event, if true, must have been 
notorious and well known for several generations ; 
and if untrue, no one living near the time and place 
would have ventured to fabricate it. And (what 
renders the argument still stronger) all this is stated to 
. have occurred, not among savages, but among a fainly 
civilised nation and in a literary age. 
t Deut. 13. 


216 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. X. 


Next as to the destruction of the Assyrian army. 
Here it will be remembered that when Sennacherib 
came to attack Jerusalem, he publicly, and in the 
most insulting manner, defied the God of Israel to 
deliver the city out of his hand (probably about 
B.C. 701).1_ We then read how Isaiah declared that God 
accepted the challenge, and would defend Jerusalem, 
and would not allow it to be destroyed. And the 
sacredness of the city is very strongly insisted on. For. 
instance, ‘ The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised 
thee, and laughed thee to scorn, the daughter of Jeru- 
salem hath shaken her head at thee,’ and a great deal 
more to the same effect, ending with the emphatic asser- 
tion by Jehovah, ‘I will defend thts city to save tt, for 
mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.’ 

Now it is inconceivable that such a passage could 
have been written after Jerusalem had been totally 
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (about B.c. 586) or even 
after it had been captured by him (B.c. 598).2. There 
is of course no real inconsistency in God’s preserving 
the city in the one case, and not in the other; for 
Nebuchadnezzar is always represented as being, though 
unconsciously, God's servant in punishing the Jews ; 
while Sennacherib openly defied Jehovah. . 

After this comes the sudden destruction of the As- 
syrian army (probably by pestilence) ; and the extreme 
fitness of such a miracle, or superhuman coincidence, 
after Sennacherib’s challenge must be obvious to every- 
one. Moreover, such a public and notorious event, if 
untrue, could not have been invented till long after- 


1 2 Kings 18. 17; 19.34. 2 2 Kings 24. 13; 25. 9. 


JEWISH MIRACLES. 2¥7 


wards ; and yet, as we have just shown, the narrative 
could not have been written long afterwards. Sen- 
nacherib does not of course allude to it himself in his 
- inscriptions, for kings never like to record their own 
defeats; but this is no reason for doubting that it 
occurred, more especially as it is confirmed by the 
Babylonian historian Berosus.? 

We need not examine the other miracles in detail, 
since the argument is much the same in every case. 
They are all said to have occurred on important and 
critical occasions when, if we admit miracles at all, 
they would be most suitable. They are all said to have 
been public miracles, either actually worked before 
crowds of persons, or else so affecting public men that 
their truth or otherwise must have been notorious at 
the time. And they were all of such a kind that any 
mistake or fraud as to their occurrence was out of the 
question. It is, then, on the face of it, most unlikely 
that miracles, such as these, should have been described 
unless they were true. Indeed, if the Old Testament 
books were written by contemporaries, or even within 
a century of the events they relate, it is very difficult 
to deny their occurrence. We decide, therefore, that 
it seems probable that the history of the Jewish Religion 
was attested by miracles. 

1 Quoted by Josephus, Antiq. x. 1. 


CHAPTER XI. 


THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO ATTESTED’ BY 
PROPHECIES. 


(A4.) GENERAL PROPHECIES. 
Three examples considered : 


(1.) The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia. 
(2.) The degradation of Egypt. ; 
(3.) The dispersion of the Jews, including the Roman siege. 


(B.) SPECIAL PROPHECIES. 


List of eight important ones : a single example, the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians considered in 
detail ; and some general remarks. 


(C.) CoNCLUSION, 


The cumulative nature of the evidence. 


WE pass on now to the Jewish Prophecies. And it 
should be explained at starting that the word prophecy 
is used in this Essay in the sense of prediction ; and 
not as it often is, in the Bible, to include exhortation 
and teaching. And the prophecies may be divided 
into two classes, general and special. 

(A.) GENERAL PROPHECIES. 

We will consider the General Prophecies first, exclud- 
ing at present those referring to the Messiah (Chapter 


* The former were called prophecies, and the latter predictions 
in the earlier editions of this book. 


218 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 219 


XIX.) ; and, as we shall see, their agreement with 
history seems far too exact to be accidental, while 
in this case it is impossible to get over the difficulty 
by the favourite expedient of saying that they were 
written after the event. We will select for examination 
those concerning the Jews themselves, and their great 
neighbours Assyria and Babylonia, on the one hand, 
and Egypt on the other. All these nations had existed 
for centuries, and there seems no reason why the 
Jewish prophets should have pronounced any per- 
manent doom on them at all, still less on their own 
people. But they did so, and with remarkable dis- 
crimination. 

(1.) The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia. 

And first as to Assyria and Babylonia. The future 
of these countries was to be utter desolation. The 
kingdoms were to be destroyed, the land was to 
become a wilderness, and the cities to be entirely 
forsaken. We read repeatedly that they were to be 
desolate for ever ; and though this cannot be pressed 
as meaning literally for all eternity, it certainly implies 
a long duration.’ A single passage referring to each 
_may be quoted at length. 

Thus Zephaniah says of Assyria, ‘ And he will stretch 
out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria ; 
and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like the 
wilderness. And herds shall lie down in the midst of 
her, all the beasts of the nations ; both the pelican and 
the porcupine shall lodge in the chapiters thereof [the 


1 Isa. 13. 19-22; 14. 22 Ser. 00. 13) 305.40); OL. 26 aarase 
Nahum 3. 7 ; Zee 2. 13-1 on 


220 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XI. 


capitals of the fallen columns]: their voice shall sing 
in the windows ; desolation shall be in the thresholds : 
for he hath laid bare the cedar work. This is the 
joyous city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her 
heart, | am, and there is none else beside me: how 
is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie 
down in !’ 

And Isaiah says of Babylon, ‘And Babylon, the 
glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldean’s pride, 
shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 
It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt 
in from generation to generation: neither shall the 
Arabian pitch tent there ; neither shall shepherds make 
their flocks to lie down there. But wild beasts of the 
desert shall lie there ; and their houses shall be full of 
doleful creatures ; and ostriches shall dwell there, and 
satyrs [or goats] shali dance there. And wolves shall 
cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces : 
and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be 
prolonged.’ 

It seems needless to comment on prophecies so plain 
and straightforward. Nor need we insist at any length 
on their exact fulfilment ;.it is obvious to everyone. 
For two thousand years history has verified them. 
The utter desolation of these countries is without a 
parallel : the empires have vanished, the once populous 
land is deserted, and the cities are heaps of ruins, often 
the dens of wild beasts ; lions, hyenas, and jackals 
having all been seen among the ruins of Babylon. In 
short, the prophecies have been fulfilled in a manner 
which is, to say the least, very remarkable. 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 221 


(2.) The degradation of Egyt. 

And next as to Egypt. The future foretold of this 
country is not desolation but degradation. Ezekiel 
tells us it is to become a base kingdom, and he adds, 
“It shall be the basest of the kingdoms ; neither shall 
it any more lift itself up above the nations: and I will 
diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the 
nations. ! And here also prophecy has been turned 
into history. The permanent degradation of Egypt 
is a striking fact which cannot be disputed. When 
the prophets wrote, Egypt had on the whole been a 
powerful and independent kingdom for some thousands 
of years: but it has never been so since. Persians, 
Greeks, Romans, Byzantine Greeks, Saracens, Mem- 
looks, Turks, and we may now add British, have in 
turn been its masters ; but it has been the master of 
no one. It has never more ruled over the nations as it 
used to do for so many centuries. Its history in this 
respect has been unique—an unparalleled period of 
prosperity followed by an unparalleled period of 
degradation. 

With such an obvious fulfilment of the main pro- 
phecy, it seems needless to insist on any of its details, 
though some of these are sufficiently striking. Thus 
Ezekiel’s description of Egypt as the basest of kingdoms 
seems peculiarly appropriate to that country, which 
was once ruled by a dynasty of slaves (the Memlooks). 
Again, we read in the next chapter, Her cities shall be in 
the midst of the cities that are wasted ;* and though it is 
doubtful to what period this refers, yet no more 

1_Ezekir2oars: a Ezek. 30. oe 


- 


_ 222 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XI. 


accurate description can be given of the present cities 
of Egypt, such as Cairo, than that they are in the 
midst of the cities that are wasted, such as Memphis, 
Bubastis, and Tanis. 

And a few verses farther on is foretold the fate of the 
two ancient capitals, Thebes (called in the Bible No 
or No-Amon) and Memphis (called Noph). Both were 
to be destroyed, but of Memphis alone the significant 
detail.is added, Thus saith the Lord God, I will destroy 
the rdols, and I will cause the images to cease from Noph.* 
And what do we find ? Both cities have been destroyed 
for centuries; but while the temples and statues of 
Thebes still remain, the admiration of all travellers, 
those of Memphis (though of great magnificence in the 
time of Herodotus) have now entirely perished, except 
such fragments as are buried underground. Only 
persons who have visited the two sites can fully realise 
the difference between them. 

And again in this same verse we read, There shall be 
no more a prince out of the land of Egypt; and yet, 
when this passage was written, there had been inde- 
pendent Egyptian sovereigns from the very dawn of 
history ; but there have been none since. Stress, how- 
ever, is not laid on details like these, some of which 
are admittedly obscure, such as the forty years’ desola- - 
tion of the land with the scattering of its inhabitants,? 
but rather on the broad fact that Egypt was not to be 
destroyed like Assyria and Babylonia, but to be- 
degraded, and that this has actually been its history. 


1 Ezek. 30. 13-16; Jer. 46. 10. 
2 Ezek. 29, 11-13; 30. 23, 26. 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 223 


(3.) The dispersion of the Jews. 

Lastly, as to the Jews. Their future was to be 
neither destruction nor degradation, but dispersion. 
This is asserted over and over again. They were to be 
scattered among the nations, and dispersed through the 
countries ; to be wanderers among the nations ; sifted 
among all nations ; tossed to and fro among all the king- 
doms of the earth; and scattered among all peoples 
from one end of the earth even unto the other end of 
the earth.’ Moreover, in their dispersion they were to 
be subjected to continual suffering and persecution. 
They were to become an astonishment, a proverb, and 
a byword among all people. Their curses were to be 
upon them, for a sign and for a wonder, and upon their 
seed for ever. They were to have a yoke of iron upon 
their necks ; and to have the sword drawn out after 
them in all lands, etc. And yet, in spite of all this, 
they were not to be merged into other nations, but to 
remain distinct. They and their seed for ever were to 
be a separate people, a sign and a wonder at all times.2 

And here again history has exactly coincided with 
prophecy. The fate of the Jews, since the destruction 
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has actually been dispersion, 
and this to an extent which is quite unique. It has 
been combined, moreover, with incessant suffering 
and persecution, and yet they have always remained 
a separate people. The Jews are still everywhere, 
though the Jewish nation is nowhere. They are 

1 Ezek. 22. 15; Hos. 9. 17; Amos 9. 9; Deut. 28. 25, 64; see 


also Lev. 26. 33; Deut. 4.27; Neh. 1.8; Jer. 9. 16. 
= * Deut. 28. 37, 46, 48; Lev. 26. 33; Jer. 24.9; 29. 18. 


224 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XI. 


present in all countries, but with a home in none, 
having been literally scattered among the nations. 

We will now examine a single passage in detail, and 
select the latter part of Deut. 28. The whole chapter 
is indeed full of prophecies as to the future condition 
of the Jews, some of which seem to point to the Baby- 
lonian captivity, (¢.g., v. 36) ; but after this we come 
to another and final catastrophe in v. 49. This evi- 
dently begins a fresh subject, which is continued with- 
out a break till the end of the chapter, and it is specially 
interesting because, not only is the world-wide dis- 
persion of the Jews clearly foretold, but also the 
previous war which led up'to it. And though much 
of the language used would of course suit any ancient 
war, it seems to be particularly applicable to that in 
A.D. 70. We have, as is well known, a full account of 
this in the history of Josephus, and as he never alludes 
to the prophecy himself (except in the most general 
terms),1 his evidence is beyond suspicion. 


Ver. 49. First of all the conquerors themselves are described as a 
nation from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle 
flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, 
etc., which is very appropriate to the Romans, whose 
general Vespasian had come from Britain,? and their 
troops from various countries, who had the eagle as 
their standard, and whose language, Latin, was un- 
known to most of the Jews. 

50. And the merciless way in which these fierce warriors 
were to spare neither old nor young was painfully true 
in their treatment of the Jews. 

51. And they also of course destroyed or confiscated their 
property. vf 

52. Then the war itself is foretold—in fact, emphasised—as 


1 Wars, iv. 6. 4 Wars} ‘iia, 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 225 


one of sieges, throughout all the land, rather than of open 
battles ; and this was actually the case in this war 
(though it had not been so in some other wars, such as 
those of the Maccabees), Jotapata, Japha, Tarichea, 
Gamala, Girschala, Macherus, and Masada, as well as 
Jerusalem itself, all suffering terrible sieges. And 
these were to be continued #il/ the high walls came down, 
which is very suggestive of the Roman battering rams, 
that were actually used at several of these places. 

53-55. Then we-have the dreadful famine, due to the stvaitness 
of the siege (evidently the great siege, that of Jeru- 
salem), which is strongly insisted on. And it was to 
lead to the fiercest strife, even members of the same 
family fighting for morsels of food ; and finally to drive 
the wretched inhabitants to cannibalism of the most 
revolting kind. 

56-57. And this was to be the fate not only of the poor, but of 
the wealthy also; even ladies of high position who 
would not put their feet on the ground, but were 
accustomed to be carried about in chairs (and there- 
fore rich enough to buy anything that could be bought), 
secretly eating their own children. And all this, as 
we learn from Josephus, actually occurred during the 
Roman siege.2 He describes how parents would fight 
with their children for fragments of food, and mentions 
one instance that was discovered, in which a lady 
eminent for her family and wealth (Mary, the daughter 
of Eleazar) had secretly eaten half her own child. 

58. And these miseries were to come upon the Jews for their 
disobedience of God’s laws ; and though, unfortunately, 
this was not confined to any one period, yet Josephus 
bears witness to their exceptional wickedness at this 
time ; which he says was so great that if the Romans 
had not destroyed their city, he thinks it would have 
been swallowed up by the earth, or destroyed like 
Sodom. In fact, towards the close of the war, their 
crimes seem to have been as unparalleled as their 
sufferings. 

59. And it was to be no ordinary tale of suffering ; but the 
plagues of themselves, and of their seed, were to be 


1 Wars, iii. 7, 10; iv. A Ao | Oe Ge 
2-Wars, v. 10: Vi. 35 3 Wars, v. 13. 


TS 


226 


60. 


is 


62. 


63. 


64. 


65-67. 


ma 


r 


THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, Xt, 


wonderful, even great plagues, and of long continuance, 
and sove sicknesses and of long continuance. And no 
one who has read the account of the siege, and the 
subsequent treatment of the Jews, will think the 
description at all exaggerated. 

And the people are specially threatened with the diseases 
of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and this, as said in ~ 
Chapter IX., implies that the passage was written 
soon after the people left Egypt, and therefore cen- 
turies before any siege or dispersion. 

And all these woes, and many others, were to end, as 
they actually did end, in the destruction of the nation, 
until thou be destroyed. 

And the Jews that survived were to be left compara- 
tively few in number ; and this was certainly the case, 
even allowing that the statement of Josephus that 
over 600,000 perished in the siege may be an exaggera- 
tion.1 

And these were to be forcibly expelled from the land of 
Canaan, which they were just about to conquer— 
plucked from off the land is the striking expression used ; 
and they actually were so expelled by the Romans, 
partly after this war, and still more so after their 
rebellion in A.D. 134, when for many centuries scarcely 
any Jews were allowed to live in their own country, 
an event probably unique in history. 

But instead of being taken away to a single nation, as 
at the Babylonian captivity, they were now to be 
scattered over the whole world, among all peoples, 
from one end of the earth, even unto the other end of the 
earth. And how marvellously this has been fulfilled 
is obvious to everyone. No mention is made of a 
king here, as in ver. 36; so while that suits the Baby- 
lonian captivity, this suits the later dispersion, though 
in each case there is a reference to serving other 
gods which cannot be satisfactorily explained. 

And then we have the terrible sufferings that the Jews 
were to undergo in their dispersion. Among these 
nations they were to find no ease, nor rest for the sole. 
of their foot, but were to have a trembling heari, and 
failing of eves, and pining of soul, and their life was 


1. Wars, v.13. 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 227 


to hang in doubt night and day. And here, again, 
the event is as strange as the prophecy. Nowhere else 
shall we find a parallel to it. For centuries the Jews 
have been subject to continual suffering and persecu- 
tion, and are so still in some countries, such as Russia. 
They have found no rest anywhere, but have been 
driven from city to city, and from kingdom to king- 
dom, and have lived in daily fear of their lives. 

68. Lastly, we read, that some of the Jews, instead of being 
dispersed, were to be brought to Egypt again with ships, 
and to be in bondage there. And there ye shall sell 
yourselves (or be sold) unto your enemies for bondmen, 
and for bondwomen, and no man shall buy you: This 
latter clause cannot, of course, be taken literally, for 
unless they were bought, they could not be sold bag A = 
can only mean that there were not enough buyers. 
And this also came true, after the Roman siege (though 
not, as far as we know, after any other siege), when 
the number of Jews sold for slaves was so great that 
there was a difficulty in finding purchasers, and many 
of them were sent to the mines in Egypt, probably in 
slave ships. 


Everyone must admit that the agreement all through 
is very remarkable ; in fact, the prophecies about the 
dispersion of the Jews—and we have only examined 
a single instance in detail—are even more striking than 
those about the desolation of Assyria and Babylonia, 
or the degradation of Egypt. And to fully realise 
their combined importance, let us suppose that anyone 
now were to foretell the future of three great nations, 
Saying that one was to be utterly destroyed, and the 
land desolated ; another to sink to be a base kingdom ; 
and the third to be conquered and its inhabitants 
forcibly expelled, and scattered over the whole world. 
What chance would there be of any one of the pro- 

1 Wars, vi. 8, 9. 
I5—2 


228 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. . CHAP. XI. 


phecies (leave alone all three) coming true, and remain- 
ing true for two thousand years? And yet this would 
be but a parallel case. 

What conclusion, then, must be drawn from all these 
prophecies, so clear in their general meaning, so distinc- 
tive in their character, so minute in many of their 
details, so unlikely at the time they were written, and 
yet one and all so exactly fulfilled ? There seem to be 
only three alternatives to choose from. Either they 
must have been random guesses, which seems in- 
credible ; for such guesses do not, as a rule, come true. 
Or else they must have been due to deep foresight 
on the part of the writers, which seems equally in- 
credible ; for the writers had had no experience of the 
permanent desolation of great empires like Assyria and 
Babylonia, while as to the fate of Egypt and the Jews 
themselves history afforded no parallel. Or else, 
lastly, the writers must have had revealed to them 
what the future of these nations would be; in which 
case, and in which case alone, all is plain. 

(B.) SPECIAL PROPHECIES. 

We pass on now to the Special Prophecies. These 
are found all through the Old Testament, the following ~ 
being eight of the most important. 

The fact that David’s throne should always be held 
by his descendants, 7.¢., till the captivity, about 450 
years ;! and its fulfilment is specially remarkable when 
contrasted with the rival kingdom of Samaria, where 
the dynasty changed eight or nine times in 250 years. 

The division of the kingdom into ten and two tribes, 


1 2 Sam. 7. 12-17; 1 Kings 9.4, 5. 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 229 


evidently announced at the time, since Jeroboam had 
to flee in consequence, and apparently the reason why 
the rebels were not attacked.+ 
The destruction, rebuilding, and final destruction of 
the Temple ; the first of these prophecies being made 
so publicly that it caused quite a commotion.? 
~ The destruction of the altar at Bethel, which was set 
up as a rival to that at Jerusalem ; publicly announced 
some centuries before, including the name of the 
destroyer.* 
The destruction of Israel by the Assyrians.¢4 
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.® 
_ The captivity of the Jews, including its duration of 
seventy years, their most unlikely restoration, and the 
name of the restorer.® 
The wars between Egypt and Syria.7 
_ We will examine a single instance in detail, and 
select that referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by 
the Babylonians, as this is connected with one of the 
miracles mentioned in the last chapter, the shadow on 
the dial, which we will glance at in passing. Now, it 
will be remembered that, on one occasion, the Jewish 
King Hezekiah was seriously ill, and on being told by 
Isaiah of his unexpected recovery, he naturally asked 
for a stgn ; and then in accordance with his demand 
the shadow on the dial went back ten sfeps.* The dial 
1 1 Kings 11. 30, 40; 12. 24. 
2 Jer. 26. 8-16; Isa. 44. 28; Dan. 9.26. 
31 Kings 13. 2; 2 Kings 23. 15, 16; Josephus, Antiq., viii. 9. 
Bet Kings 14, 15> Isa; tne j- 8.4. 
5 2 Kings 20. 17. 6 Jer. 29. 10; Isa. 44. 28. 
7 Dan. 11, 8 2 Kings 20. 8-11 ; 2 Chron. 32. 24, 31 


230 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, Sly 


was evidently a flight of steps (for the Hebrew word 
means steps) ,1 with some object on the top which threw 
a shadow on a gradually decreasing number of these as 
the sun rose, and a sudden subsidence of the ground at 
one end, due perhaps to an earthquake, would quite 
account for the shadow going back and again covering 
some steps it had left. The event seems to have 
attracted considerable _attention, since messengers 
came from Babylon to inquire about it (so it evidently 
was not noticed there, and must have been due to some 
local cause) and to congratulate the king on his re- 
covery. And we may ask, how could any writer have 
asserted all this, even a century afterwards, if no such 
sign had occurred ? 

We are then told that Hezekiah showed these mes- 
sengers all his treasures, which leads up to the vo- 
phecy that the treasures should be carried away and 
Jerusalem destroyed by these very Babylonians. This © 
is introduced in the most natural way possible as a 
rebuke to the king for his ostentatious display ; and 
it is difficult to consider it a later insertion. And yet 
the event could not have been humanly foreseen. For 
Babylon was then but a small and friendly nation, 
shortly to be absorbed into Assyria, and only when it 
reasserted its independence a century later did it 
become powerful enough to have caused any fear to 
the Jews. 

It will not be necessary to discuss the other pro- 
phecies at length, since that they all refer to the events 
in question is generally admitted. Indeed, in some 

1 2 Kings 20. 11 (margin, R.V.). 


JEWISH- PROPHECIES, © 231 


cases, owing to the mention of names and details, it 
cannot possibly be denied. And therefore, of course, 
those who disbelieve in prophecy have no alternative 
but to say that they were all written after the event. 

At this lapse of time it is difficult to prove or disprove 
such astatement. But it must be remembered that to 
say that any apparent prophecies were written after 
the event is not merely to destroy their superhuman 
character, and bring them down to the level of ordinary 
writings, but far belowit. For ordinary writings do not 
contain wilful misstatements, and yet every pretended 
prophecy written after the event cannot possibly be 
regarded in any other light. The choice then les 
between veal prophecies and wilful forgeries. There is 
no other alternative. And bearing this in mind, we 
must ask, is it likely that men of such high moral 
character as the Hebrew prophets,—men who declared 
that they spoke in the name of God,—should have 
been guilty of such gross imposture ? Is it likely that, 
if guilty of it, they should have been able to palm it off 
successfully on the whole Jewish nation? And is it 
likely that they should have had any sufficient motive 
to induce them to make the attempt ? 

Moreover, many of these prophecies are stated to 
have been made iu public, and to have been notorious 
and well known long before their fulfilment. And it is 
hard to see how this could have been asserted unless it 
was the case, or how it could have been the case unless 
they were superhuman. 

It should also be noticed that in Deuteronomy the 
occurrence of some definite and specified event is given 


232 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XI. 


as the test of a prophet, and the later prophets appeal 
to this very test. Thus Isaiah challenges the false 
prophets to foretell future events, and repeatedly 
asserts that this was the mark of a true prophet.! And 
it seems inconceivable that men should thus court 
defeat by themselves proposing a test which would 
have shown that they were nothing more than impos- 
tors. And yet this would have been the case if all 
their so-called prophecies had been uttered after the 
events. 

Lastly, it is important to notice what we may call the 
moral aspect of these prophecies. Their object was 
not to satisfy mere curiosity as to the future ; they had 
a very different purpose. The prophet and the teacher 
were then combined, and the prophecies were, as a rule, 
only a means of enforcing the teaching, more especially 
God’s overruling providence in the affairs of men. 
And therefore in almost every case the reason why 
the event was to come was foretold as plainly as the 
event itself. And prophecy thus became the inter- 
preter of history, showing the Jews what were the 
objects God had in view in the various events which 
befell them. 

And it has this moral use still. For though it is a 
truth of Natural Theology that God governs the world, 
and carries out His purposes in the history of men just 
as much as in the course of nature, yet it is a truth 
likely to be forgotten. And the history of the Jews — 
enforces it on us in an instructive manner, We here see 
what we may call a small samle of the world’s history, 

1 Deut. 18. 22 ; Isa. 41. 22; 44. 8; 48. 3-5 ; see also Deut. 13. 1-3. 


JEWISH PROPHECIES. 233 


annotated by God Himself, with His object in bringing 
about every important event announced beforehand ; 
this prior announcement being, of course, necessary to 
show that they were really God’s purposes, and not the 
subsequent guesses of men. 

(C.) CoNncLusION. 

In concluding this chapter, we must notice the 
cumulative nature of the evidence. The instances we 
have enumerated of prophecies, and the same applies 
to the miracles mentioned in the last chapter, are but 
specimens, a few out of many which might be given. 
This is very important, and its bearing on our present 
argument is naturally twofold. 

In the first place, it does not at all increase, and in 
some respects rather decreases, the difficulty of believ- 
ing them to be genuine, for thirty miracles or pro- 
phecies, provided they occur on suitable occasions, are 
scarcely more difficult to believe than three. And the 
number recorded in the Old Testament shows that, 
instead of being mere isolated marvels, they form a 
complete series. Their object was the gradual in- 
struction of the Jews, and through them of the rest of 
the world, in the great truths of Natural Theology, 
such as the existence of One Supreme God, who was 
shown to be All-Powerful by the miracles, All-Wise by 
the prophecies, and Adi-Good by His rewarding and 
punishing men and nations alike for their deeds. And 
it may be added many who now believe Natural 
Theology alone, and reject all revelation, would prob- 
ably never have believed even this but for the Bible. 

On the other hand, the number and variety of these 


BY Eee THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XI. 


alleged events increase the difficulty of any other ex- 
planation to an enormous extent, for thirty miracles or 
prophecies are far more difficult to disbelieve than 
three. A successful fraud might take place once, but 
not often. An imitation miracle might be practised 
once, but not often. Spurious prophecies might be 
mistaken for genuine once, but not often. And yet, if 
none of these events are true, such frauds and such 
deceptions must have been practised, and practised 
successfully, over and over again. In short, the Old 
Testament must be a collection of the most dishonest 
books ever written, for it is full of miracles and pro- 
phecies from beginning to end; and it is hard to ex- 
aggerate the immense moral difficulty of accepting such 
a view. Many of the Jewish prophets, as before said, 
inculcate the highest moral virtues; and the Jewish 
religion, especially in its later days, is admittedly of 
high moral character. It seems, then, to be almost 
incredible that its sacred writings should be merely a 
collection of spurious prophecies uttered after the 
event and false miracles which never occurred. We 
therefore decide in this chapter that it seems probable 
that the history of the Jewish religion was attested by 
prophecies. 


CHAPTER, XTI. 


THAT THEREFORE THE JEWISH RELIGION IS 
PROBABLY TRUE. 


Only one subject remains to be discussed, the Character ascribed to 
God in the Old Testament. 


(A.) Its PartTIALity. 
But any revelation must be more or less partial. 
(B.) Irs DIFFICULTIES. 


(1.) Mental difficulties, or anthropomorphism ; but we must 
use vepresentative terms when speaking of the Deity, 
and the writers quite understood the terms to be 
such. 

(2.) Moral difficulties ; since God is shown as approving of 
wicked men, ordering wicked deeds, and sanctioning 
wicked customs ; but these objections are not so 
great as they seem. 


(C.) Its GENERAL EXCELLENCE. 


The Jews firmly believed in Monotheism, and had the 
highest mental and moral conception of the Deity ; so 
that their religion was Natural Theology, only with 
certain additions. 


aA 
(D.) CONCLUSION. 
The Jewish Religion is probably true. 


WE have been considering in the previous chapters 

several strong arguments in favour of the Jewish 

Religion ; and before concluding we must of course 

notice any adverse arguments which we have not 
235 


236 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


already examined. The only one of any importance 
refers to the Character ascribed to God in the Old Testa- 
ment, and we will consider this under the three heads 
of its partiality, its difficulités, and its general excellence, 
and will then conclude with some general remarks. 

(A.) Its PARTIALITY. 

And first as to the alleged partiality in God’s Char- 
acter. The objection here is that God is the just God 
of all mankind, and it is therefore incredible that He 
should have selected a single nation to be His special 
favourites, more particularly as His alleged attempt 
to make them a holy people proved such a hopeless 
failure. While it is further urged that the very fact of 
the Jews believing Jehovah to be their special God 
shows that they regarded Him as a mere national God, 
bearing the same relation to themselves as the gods 
of other nations did to them. 

But, as said in Chapter VI., any Revelation implies 
a certain farttality to the men or nation to whom it is 
given; but it is not therefore incredible. And there 
is certainly no reason why the Jews should not have 
been the nation chosen, and some slight reason why 
they should; for their ancestor Abraham was not 
selected without a cause. He did, partly at least, 
deserve it, since, judging by the only accounts we have, 
he showed the most unbounded confidence in God in 
leaving his home in Haran, and the most implicit 
obedience to God in his willingness to offer up Isaac ; 
and such confidence and obedience may well have 
deserved a blessing. It must also be remembered 
that God’s so-called partiality to the Jews did not 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 237 


- 


imply any indulgence to them in the sense of over- 
looking their faults. On the contrary, He is repre- 
sented all along as blaming and punishing them, just 
as much as other nations, for their iniquities. 

Next, as to God’s purpose in regard to Israel having 
been a failure. This is only partly true. No doubt 
the Israelites were, with many bright exceptions, a 
sinful nation ; but they were not worse than, or even so 
bad as, the nations around them ; it was only the fact 
of their being the chosen race that made their sins so 
heinous. They had free will, just as men have now ; 
and if they chose to misuse their freedom and act 
wrong, that was not God’s fault. Moreover, Israel was 
not selected merely for its own sake, but for the sake 
of all mankind. This is expressly stated at the very 
commencement, ‘In thee shall all the families of the 
earth be blessed." And this strange promise has cer- 
tainly been fulfilled ; for however sinful the nation may 
have been, they preserved and handed on God’s revela- 
tion, and the Old Testament remains, and will always 
remain, as a permanent and priceless treasure of religion. 

The last part of the objection, that God’s alleged 
selection of the Israelites shows that they believed 
their Jehovah to be only a national God, may be 
dismissed at once, as it proves precisely the opposite. 
For if Jehovah selected Israel to be His people, He 
must have had a power of choice, and might, if He 
pleased, have selected some other nation, and there- 
fore He could not have been a mere national God, but 
the God of all nations, with power to select among 

1 Gen. 12.°3. 


238 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIl. 


them. And this is distinctly asserted by many of the 
writers.! 

We conclude, then, that God’s partiality to the Jews 
does not, when carefully considered, form a great diffi- 
culty. To put it shortly, if a revelation is given at 
all, some individuals must be selected to receive it ; 
if it is given gradually (and God’s methods in nature 
are always those of gradual development) these men 
must in all probability belong to a single nation ; and 
if one nation has to be selected, there is no reason why 
the Jews should not have been the one chosen ; while, 
if they were selected for the purpose of handing on 
God’s revelation to the world at large, the purpose has 
been completely successful. 

(B.) Irs DIFFICULTIES. 

Passing on now to the difficulties in God’s Character, 
these may be conveniently classed under the two heads 
of mental and moral. 

(1.) Mental difficulties. 

The objection here is that the Jewish idea of God 
is very anthropomorphic, the Deity being represented 
as a great Man, with human form, feelings, attributes, 
and imperfections. Thus He has hands and arms, 
eyes and ears ; He is at times glad or sorry, angry or 
jealous ; He moves about from place to place; and 
sometimes repents of what He has done, thus showing, 
itis urged, a want of foresight on His part. And all 
this is plainly inconsistent with the character of the 
immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient God of nature. 
The answer to this objection is twofold. 

1 E.g., Deut. 32. 8 ; 2 Chron, 20. 6; Isa. 37. 16; Amos. 9. vie 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 239 


In the first place, it is almost impossible for the 
human mind to form any conception of the Deity 
which is not to some extent anthropomorphic, which 
merely means human. For a moment’s reflection will 
show that we are bound to use what are called repre- 
sentative terms (Chapter VIII.) when speaking of the 
Deity. And if such terms are used at all, those drawn 
from human analogies are not only the easiest to under- 
stand, but are also the least inappropriate, since, as we 
have shown, man resembles God in that he is a per- 
sonal and moral being ; and therefore likening God to 
man is not so degrading as likening Him to natural 
forces. Such expressions, then, must always be con- 
sidered as descriptions drawn from human analogies 
which cannot be pressed literally. 

While, secondly, it is plain that the Jewish writers 
themselves so understood them, for they elsewhere 
describe the Deity in the most exalted language, as 
will be shown later on. And this is strongly confirmed 
by the remarkable fact that the Jews, unlike other 
ancient nations, had no material idol or representation 
of their Deity. Inside both the tabernacle and the 
temple there was the holy of holies with the mercy- 
seat, but no one sat on it. An empty throne was all 
that the shrine contained. Their Jehovah was essen- 
tially an invisible God, who could not be represented 
by any human or other form ; and this alone seems a 
sufficient answer to the present objection. 

(2.) Moral difficulties. 

Next as to the moral difficulties. Many of these 
depend on single texts, or doubtful passages, and so 


240 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII: 


need scarcely be examined ; but there are at least three 
of a more general character. These are that God is 
frequently represented as approving of wicked men, 
as ordering wicked deeds, and even in His own laws as 
sanctioning wicked customs. We will consider these 
points in turn. 

_And first as to God’s approving of wicked men ; that 
is, of men who committed the greatest crimes, such 
as Jacob and David. This is easily answered, since 
approving of a man does not mean approving of 
everything he does. The case of David affords a con- 
vincing example of this ; for though he is represented 
as a man after God’s own heart, yet we are told that 
God was so extremely displeased with one of his acts 
that He punished him for it severely in causing his 
child to die. In the same way no one supposes’ that 
God approved of Jacob because of his treachery, but 
in spite of it. Moreover, in estimating a man’s char- 
acter, his education and surroundings have always to 
be taken into account. And therefore, if the conduct 
of one man living in an immoral age is far better than 
that of his contemporaries, he may be worthy of praise, 
though similar conduct at the present day might not 
deserve it. 

And if it be asked what there was in the character of 
these men, and many others, to counterbalance their 
obvious crimes, the answer is plain: it was their 
intense and unfaltering belief in the spiritual world. 
The existence of One Supreme God, and their per- 
sonal responsibility to Him, were realities to them 
all through life; and therefore, in spite of many 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. | 24I 


faults, they were, on the whole, worthy of com- 
mendation. 

Next as to God’s ordering wicked deeds. In all cases 
of this kind it is important to distinguish between a 
man’s personal acts and his official ones. At the 
present day the judge who condemns a criminal and 
the executioner who hangs him are not looked upon as 
murderers. And the same principle applies among 
uncivilised nations. If the ruler of the country decides 
that a man is worthy of death, and thereupon sends 
» someone to kill him, his doing so is not a murder in the 
ordinary sense. It is merely carrying out the command 
of the sovereign, which may or may not be justified. 

Now in the Old Testament the Israelites are repre- 
sented as living under the immediate rule of God. 
He was their true Sovereign, and therefore when a man, 
or body of men, had to be punished for their crimes, 
He commanded some prophet or king, or perhaps the 
whole people, to carry out the sentence. And of course, 
if they failed to do so, even from kindness of heart, they 
were blamed, just as we should blame a hangman at » 
the present day who failed to do his duty. 

Thus, in the case of destroying the Canaanites, which 
is the instance most often objected to, the Israelites 
_ were told, in the plainest terms, that they were only 
acting as God’s ministers, and that if they behaved as 
badly as the Canaanites, God would have them exter- 
minated too.t This was not the usual way in which 
they were to carry on wars, but the Canaanites, for 
their special and exceptional wickedness, had to be 


1 E.g., Lev. 18. 28; Deut. 9. 5. 
16 


242 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


specially punished. They were in fact a horribly 


polluted race,! and it was quite in accord with God’s 
methods in nature (where the unfit are always de- 
stroyed) to have them exterminated. And viewed in 
this light, the difficulties under this head are very greatly 
reduced, even if they do not disappear altogether. 

A more serious objection is that God is occasionally 
represented as if He Himself caused men to do wrong, 
such as His hardening Pharaoh's heart.2, But this may 
be only another instance in which the Bible omits all 
secondary causes, and refers everything direct to the 
First Cause (see Chapter VII.). And as the writer 
asserts more than once that Pharaoh hardened his own 
heart,® there can be little doubt that he meant the two 
expressions to be synonymous. 

Lastly, as to God’s sanctioning wicked customs. The 
most important is that of human sacrifice ; but it is 
extremely doubtful whether the passages relied on 


do sanction this custom ;4 since it is clearly laid down. 


elsewhere that the firstborn of men are never to be 
sacrificed, but are always to be redeemed. While 
human sacrifices. among other nations are strongly 
condemned, in one passage Jehovah expressly saying 
that they were not to be offered to Him.’ It is, how- 
ever, further urged that we have two actual instances 
of such sacrifices in the case of Isaac and Jephthah.® 
But with regard to Jephthah, he evidently had no 

tLeve 8. *20-25: 2 E.g., Exod. 14. 4, 

Sead ers) s2 3001 349-10. 3: 

4 Exod. 22. 29, 30; Lev. 27. 28,.29. 

5 

6 


Exod. 19.713); 34.:20; "Nem. [8.75 = .Degto eae 
Gen. 22> Judg> 11; 309. 


A 
Se el in OP iT ee 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 243 


idea when he made his vow that it would involve the 
sacrifice of his daughter. Having made it, however, he 
determined to keep it; and during the two months 
which intervened no one seems to have tried to dis- 
suade him from it. This certainly shows that human 
sacrifices were not regarded with the same abhorrence 
then as they are now; but it does not show that they 
were ever ordered by God, or in any way acceptable 
to Him. 

In the case of Isaac we have the one instance in 
which God did order a human sacrifice; but this is 
worthless as an argument, since He specially inter- 
vened to prevent the order from being carried out. 
And the whole affair, the command and the counter- 
command, must of course be taken together. It was 
required to test Abraham’s faith to the utmost, and 
therefore as he most valued his son he was ordered to 
offer him. And since children were then universally 
regarded as property, and at the absolute disposal 
of their parents, human sacrifices being by no means 
uncommon, the command, however distressing to his 
heart, would have formed no difficulty to his con- 
science. But when his faith was found equal to the 
trial, God interposed, as He had of course intended 
doing all along, to prevent Isaac from being actually 
slain. Thus we have not a single instance of a 
deliberate human sacrifice offered to Jehovah in the 
whole course of Jewish history before or after the 
Exodus, and this is an additional reason against 
interpreting these doubtful laws as if they ordered such 


Sacrifices. 
16—2 


244 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


With regard to the other practices, such as slavery, 
polygamy, and trial by ordeal, it is undisputed that they 
were recognised by the Mosaic laws, and also that they 
are quite opposed to our modern ideas of right and 
wrong. But it must be remembered that none of 
these practices were instituted by the laws. The 
Pentateuch neither commands them nor commends 
them; it merely mentions them, and, as a rule, to 
guard against their abuse. Take, for instance, the 
case of slavery. The custom was, and had been for 
ages, universal. All the Mosaic laws did was to 
recognise its existence and to provide certain safe- 
guards ; making kidnapping, for instance, a capital 
offence, and ordering the periodic release of slaves.1 

On the other hand, many worse customs existed at 
the time which the Jewish laws did rigorously forbid,” 
so that the case stands thus: At the time of the 
Exodus society was in an extremely low moral state. 
Many of its worst customs were absolutely forbidden 
by the laws; others were sanctioned, though in a 
mitigated form. While at the same time a code of 
morals was introduced, summed up in the Decalogue, 
of such permanent value that it has been practically 
accepted by the civilised world. 

(C.) Its GENERAL EXCELLENCE. 

Having now discussed the alleged mental and moral 
difficulties in God’s character at some length, it is only 
fair to see what can be said on the other side. And 
much indeed may be said; for the Jewish conception 
of the Deity, when considered as a whole, and apart 

1 Exod. 21. 2,16; Lev. 25.-41. 2 E.g., Lev. 18-20, 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 245 


from these special difficulties, was one of the loftiest 
ever formed by man. 

To begin with, the Jews firmly believed in Mono- 
theism, or the existence of One Supreme God. This 
was the essence of their religion. It is stamped on 
the first page of Genesis ; it is implied in the Deca- 
logue; it occurs all through the historical books : 
it is emphasised in the Psalms and Prophets. They 
were never without it, and it made them into a nation. 
And in this respect the Jews stood alone among the 
surrounding nations. Some others, it is true, believed 
in a God who was more or less Supreme; but they 
always associated with him a variety of lesser deities, 
which really turned their religion into Polytheism. 
With the Jews it was not so. Their Jehovah had 
neither rivals nor assistants. He was the one and only 
God ; and as for the so-called gods of other nations, 
_ they looked upon them as either non-existent or utterly 
contemptible, and even ridiculed the idea of their 
having the slightest power. And it may be added, 
this is a subject on which the Jews have become the 
teachers of the world, for both the great monotheistic 
Religions of the present day, Christianity and Mahomet- 
anism, have been derived from them. 

Moreover, the great problem of the Existence of Evil 
never led the Jews, as it did some other nations, into 
Dualism, or the belief in an independent Evil Power. 
Difficult as the problem was, the Jews never faltered 
in their belief that there was but One Supreme God 
and that therefore everything that existed, whether 

1 Deut. 4. 39; 1 Kings 18. 27; 2 Kings 19. 15-18; Ps. 116. 4-8. 


246 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


good or evil, existed by His permission, and was in a 
certain sense His doing. But this is not all, for the 
Jews ascribed to this Supreme God the very highest 
attributes. His name, Jehovah or J Am, implied the 
Self-Existent One, and they exhausted language to 
proclaim His excellence. 

They described Him as Omnipotent ; the Creator, 
Preserver, and Possessor of all things, the Cause of all 
nature, the Sustainer of all life, Almighty in power, 
and with whom nothing is too hard.? 

They described Him as Omniscient; infinite in 
understanding, wonderful in counsel, perfect in know- 
ledge, the Designer of all nature down to its smallest 
details, knowing and foreknowing even the thoughts 
of men. 

They described Him as Omnipresent ; filling Heaven 
and earth, though contained by neither, existing 
everywhere, and from Whom escape is impossible. 

They described Him as Eternal ; the Eternal God, 
the Everlasting God, God from everlasting to ever- 
lasting, Whose years are unsearchable, the First and 
the Last.® | 

They described Him as Unchangeable ; the same at 
all times, ruling nature by fixed laws, and with Whom 
a change of purpose is impossible.® 


1 Isa. 45.7; Prov. 16.4; Job 2.6; Exod. 3. 14. 

2 Gen. 1. 1; Neh. 9. 6; Gen. 14. 22; Amos 5.-8; Job 12. 10; 
1Chron. 29: 11 3 Jer. 32.17. 

8 Ps! 147. 5; Isa. 28.29; ° Job 37. 16; Prov. 3. 19; Ps. Oana) 
Ezek. 11.5; Ps. 139. 2. 

4 Jer. 23. 24; 1 Kings 8. 27; Prov. 15. 3; Ps. 139. 7. 

5 Deut. 33. 27; Gen. 21. 33; Ps. 90.2; Job 36. 26; Isa. 48. 12. 

6 Mal. 3.6; Ps. 148.6; Num. 23. 19. 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 247 


And lastly, they described Him as in His true 
nature Unknowable ; far above human understanding, 
a hidden God, and showing but the outskirts of His 
ways.' This will be enough to show the lofty mental 
conception which the Jews formed of the Deity. 
And it may be added, after more than twenty centuries 
of progress, we cannot improve upon it at the present 
day. 

But now for their moral conception. They believed 
their God to be not only infinite in power and wisdom, 
but also, what is more remarkable, they ascribed to 
Him the highest moral character. It is needless to 
quote texts here, as the fact is indisputable. He was 
not only a beneficent God, Whose blessings were un- 
numbered, but He was a righteous God also. — His 
very Name was Holy, and His hatred of evil is empha- 
sised all through to such an extent that at times it 
forms a difficulty, as in the extermination of the 
Canaanites. Thus the goodness they ascribed to God 
was a combination of beneficence and righteousness 
very similar to what we discussed in Chapter V. 

Moreover, in this respect the God of the Jews was a 
striking contrast to the gods of the surrounding nations. 
We have only to compare Jehovah with Moloch and 
Baal, or with the Egyptian gods, Ptah and Ra, or with 
the classical gods, Jupiter and Saturn, and the superi- 
ority of the Jewish conception of the Deity is beyond 
dispute. In particular it may be noticed that other 
nations had the revolting habit of ascribing sexuality 
to their deities. Even the gods they worshipped as 

* Job 11. 7; Isa, 40. 28; 45.155; Job 26. rq. 


248 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


more or less supreme always had their female com- 
panions. Thus we have Baal and Astaroth, Bel and 
Istar, Osiris and Isis, Zeus and Hera, Jupiter and 
Juno, and numbers of others. It is needless to point 
out how easily such an idea led to immorality being 
mixed up with religion, a vice from which the Jews 
were absolutely free. Indeed, few things are more 
remarkable, even with this remarkable people, than 
that the innermost shrine of their temple contained 
a code of moral laws, the Ten Commandments. This 
was the very centre of their religion, their most cherished 
possession ; and they believed them to have been written 
by God Himself. 

Nor can it be said that this high conception of the 
Deity was confined to the later period of Jewish 
history. For the above texts have been purposely 
selected from all through the Old Testament, and even 
Abraham, the remote ancestor of the Jews, seems to 
have looked upon it as self-evident that Jehovah, 
the Judge of all the earth, should do right.1 No wonder, 
then, believing in such a perfect Being as this, the Jews, 
in contrast with most other nations, thought that their 
first and great commandment was to Jove God rather 
than to fear Him, that they were each individually 
responsible to Him for their conduct, and that every 
sin was a sin against God, Who was a searcher of 
hearts, and the impartial Judge of all men2 So 
much, then, for the Jewish conception of the Deity 

Sxen. Sion: 


* Deut. 6. 5; Eccles. 12. 14; Gen. 39. 9; 1 Chron. 28. 9; Job 
34. 19. 


eo 
ll ee 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 249 


when considered as a whole and apart from special 
difficulties. 

Now what is all this but to say that the Jewish God, 
Jehovah, was the true God, the God of Natural 
Theology, the Being Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, 
and All-Good, and Whose existence and attributes 
have been discussed in the earlier chapters of this 
Essay : ? In short, the Jewish Religion was Natural 
Theology, with some additional, though not incon- 
sistent, rites ; and this cannot be said of other ancient 
religions. 

And it may be noticed in passing that Natural 
Theology also has its moral difficulties, since such 
events as earthquakes and plagues have often been 
urged against the goodness of God with much greater 
force than anything that occurs in the Bible. But 
in each case we infer God’s character from the vast 
majority of facts, and then try and find some explana- 
tion for the small minority. And, as we have seen, 
such explanations are not, as a rule, hard to find in 
regard to the moral difficulties of the Old Testament. 
While few will deny that the Bible, both Old and New 
Testaments, with all its so-called moral defects, has 
done more to improve the lives of men than any other 
book that was ever written. 

The idea, then, that the character ascribed to God 
in the Old Testament renders the Jewish religion in- 
credible, or even improbable, is out of the question. 
Difficulties there may be here and there, but they sink 
into utter insignificance when contrasted with its 
general excellence. And yet strange to say the Jews 


250 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


were not a more advanced nation than those around 
them. On the contrary, in the arts both of peace and 
war they were vastly inferior to the great nations of 
antiquity, but in their conception of the Deity they were 
vastly superior ; or, as it has been otherwise expressed, 
they were men in religion though children in everything 
else. And this appears to many to be a strong argu- 
ment im favour of their religion. For unless it was 


revealed to them by God Himself, it is not likely that — 


the Jews alone among ancient nations would have 
arrived at the true conception of the Deity. And unless 
they were in some peculiar sense God’s people, it is 
not likely that they alone would have worshipped Him. 

(D.) CONCLUSION. 

Before concluding this chapter, we must notice three 
arguments of a more general character ; all of which are 
undisputed, and all of which are distinctly in favour of 
the Jewish religion. The first is that the Jews are any- 
how a unique nation. For centuries, though scattered 
throughout the world, they have been held together 
by their religion. If this was, as far as it went, the 
true religion, the fact is to some extent explicable ; 
but if their religion was nothing better than other 
ancient and false religions, it is hopelessly inexplic- 
able. 

The second is that their early history, either real or 
supposed, has exerted a greater and more beneficial 
influence on the world for the last thousand years, than 
that of all the great nations of antiquity put together. 
Millions of men have been helped to resist sin by the 
Psalms of David, and the stories of Elijah, Daniel, etc., 


— ee , 


TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 251 


over whom the histories of Egypt and Assyria, Greece 
and Rome, have had no influence whatever. And the 
effect of the Religion being thus unique, raises a pre- 
sumption that its cause may have been unique also ; 
in other words that it may have been divinely revealed. 

The third is that the Jews themselves always pro- 
phesied that their God, Jehovah, would one day be 
universally acknowledged.t. And (however strange we 
may think it) this has actually been the case, and the 
God of this small and insignificant tribe—the God of 
Isvael—is now worshipped by millions and millions of 
men (Christians) of every race, language, and country, 
throughout the civilised world. These are facts that 
need explanation, and the Truth of the Jewish Religion 
seems alone able to explain them. 

In conclusion it is scarcely necessary to give a 
summary of the arguments in this portion (Part II.) of 
the Essay. Suffice it to say that in the previous 
chapters we have shown that there are strong reasons 
for thinking that the account of the Creation was 
divinely revealed ; that the origin of the Jewish religion 
was attested by miracles ; and that its /ustory was 
attested both by miracles and prophecies. And it should 
be noticed, each of these arguments is independent of 
the others. We have not, for instance, assumed the 
Divine origin of the religion, when arguing about its 
history, or either of these when discussing the first 
chapter of Genesis. Thus the evidence is all cumulative 
and far more than sufficient to outweigh the improba- 
bility of the religion, due to its apparent favouritism, 

IPE er dese 77 80. 9 ,;- Isa, Els.9; 


252 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XII, 


which is the most important argument on the opposite 
side ; as the other difficulties discussed in this chapter 
are comparatively trivial. Moreover, we know so little 
as to why man was created, or what future God intended 
for him, that it is not easy to say whether the religion 
is really so improbable after all. On the other hand, 
the evidence in its favour is plain, direct, and un- 
mistakable. And we therefore decide that the Jewish 
Religion ts probably true. 


COAP. Xill, 


”? 


?? 


”? 


>? 


”? 


”? 


XIV. 


XVI. 


XVII. 


XVIII. 


XIX, 


XXI. 


XXII. 


XXIII. 


XXIV. 


Berane. LEY. 


THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 


THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE. 

THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM EX- 
TERNAL TESTIMONY. 

THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM INTERNAL 
EVIDENCE. 

THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM THE EVIDENCE 
OF THE ACTS. 

THAT THEREFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS 
PROBABLY TRUE. 

THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE 
PROBABLY TRUE. 

THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 

THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 

THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONFIRMS ITS 
TRUTH. 

THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS 
THIS CONCLUSION. 

THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. - 

THAT THEREFORE THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN 


RELIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE. 


253 


> es a 


oe ASE a 
Vs, re 


© 


~~ 
o! 
it 


Dette oss: 


CHAPTER XIII. 
THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE. 


By the Christian Religion is meant the Three Creeds. 
(A.) THE DocTRINE oF THE TRINITY. 
(1.) Its meaning ; Three Persons in One Nature. 
(2.) Its credibility. 
(3.) Its relation to Natural Theology, more probable than 
simple Theism. 
(B.) THE DocTRINE OF THE INCARNATION, 
(1.) Its difficulties ; not insuperable. 
_(2.) Its motive ; God, it is said, loves man, and wishes man 


to love Him, and this is not improbable for several 
reasons. 


(3.) Its historical position. 
(C.) THE DocrRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
The common objections do not apply because of the 
willingness of the Victim. 
(1.) As to the Victim ; this does away with the injustice. 
(2.) As to the Judge ; it appeals to His mercy not justice. 
(3.) As to the sinner ; it has no demoralising tendency. 
(D.) THE DoctTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 
(1.) Christ’s Resurrection ; not incredible, for we have no 
experience to judge by. 
(2.) Man’s resurrection ; not incredible, for the same body 
need not involve the same molecules. 
(£.) CONCLUSION. 
Four important considerations which show that the Christian 
Religion, though improbable, is certainly not incredible, 


WE pass on now to the Christian Religion, by which we 
mean the facts-and doctrines contained in the Three 
255 . 


256 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII, 


Creeds, commonly, though perhaps incorrectly, called 
the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. And, 
as these doctrines are of such vast importance, and of 
so wonderful a character, we must first consider whether 
they are credible. Is it conceivable that such doctrines 
should be true, no matter what evidence they may 
have in their favour? In this chapter, therefore, we 
shall deal chiefly with the difficulties of Christianity. 
Now its four great and characteristic doctrines are 
those of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, 
and the Resurrection; and we will examine each in 
turn, and then conclude with a few general remarks. 

(A.) THE DocTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

To begin with, the Christian religion differs from all 
others in its idea of the nature of God. According 
to Christianity, the Deity exists in some mysterious 
manner as a [vinity of Persons in a Unity of Nature ; 
so we will first consider the meaning of this doctrine, 
then its credibility, and then its relation to Natural 
Theology. It is not, as some people suppose, a kind of 
intellectual puzzle, but a statement which, whether true 
or false, is fairly intelligible, provided, of course, due 
attention is given to the meaning of the words 
employed. 

(r.) Its meaning. 

In the first place, we must carefully distinguish 
between Person and Substance ; this is the key to the 
whole question. The former has been already con- 
sidered in Chapters III. and IV., though it must be 
remembered that this term, like all others, when 
applied to God, cannot mean exactly the same as it 


—— ee 


CHRISTIANITY. 257 


does in regard to man. All we can say is that, on the 
whole, it seems the least inappropriate word. The 
latter is a difficult term to define, and is rather mis- 
leading, since it is not the modern English word, but a 
Latin translation of a Greek word, which would be 
better rendered by nature or essence. 

But though difficult to define, its meaning is tolerably 
clear. Take, for instance, though the analogy must not 
be pressed too far, the case of three men; each is a 
distinct human #erson, but they all have a common 
human nature. This human nature, which may also be 
called human substance (in its old sense), humanity, or 
manhood, has of course no existence apart from the 
men whose nature it is; it is merely that which they 
each possess in common, and the possession of which 
constitutes each a man. And hence, any attribute 
belonging to human nature as such would belong to 
each of the three men, so that each would be mortal, 
each subject to growth, etc., each would in fact possess 
the complete human nature, and yet together there 
would not be three human natures, but only one. 

Bearing this in mind, let us now turn to the doctrine 
of the Trinity. This is expressed in vy. 3-6 of the 
Athanasian Creed as follows :— 

3. ‘ The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one 
God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. 

4. “ Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing 
the Substance. 

5. ‘ For (t.e., because) there is one Person of the 
Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy 
Ghost. 


I7 


258 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. 


6. ‘But (on the other hand) the Godhead of the 
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, 
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.’ 

Here, it will be noticed, vv. 5 and 6 give the reasons 
for v. 4, so that the Godhead in v. 6 is, as we should 
have expected, equivalent to the Divine Substance or 
Nature in v. 4. Thus the meaning is as follows :— 

We must worship one God (as to Nature) in Trinity 
(of Persons) and Trinity (of Persons) in Unity (of 
Nature) ; neither confusing the Persons, for each is 
distinct ; nor dividing the Nature, for it is all one. 

Thus far there is no intellectual difficulty in the 
statements of the Creed. We do not mean that there 
is no difficulty in believing them to be true, or in 
accurately defining the terms used ; but that, as state- 
ments, their meaning is quite intelligible. 

We now pass on to the following verses which are 
deductions from this, and show that as each of the 
three Persons possesses the Divine Nature, all attributes 
of the Deity (i.e., of this one Divine Nature) are pos- 
sessed by each of the three. Each is therefore eternal, 
and yet there is only one eternal nature. But this is 
expressed in a peculiarly short and abrupt manner. 
No one of course supposes that God is Three 27 the same 
sense in which He is One, but the Creed does not 
sufficiently guard against this, perhaps because it never 
occurred to its author that anyone would think it 
meant such an obvious absurdity. Moreover, even 
grammatically the verses are not very clear. For the 
various terms uncreate, incomprehensible (t.e., bound- 
less, or omnipresent), eternal, Almighty, God, and Lord 


CHRISTIANITY. 259 


are used as if they were adjectives in the first part of 
each sentence, and nouns in the latter part. 

But we must remember these verses do not stand 

alone. As just said, they are deductions from the 
previous statement of the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
and, therefore, they must in all fairness be interpreted 
to agree with that doctrine, and not to contradict it. 
And the previous verses (3-6) show clearly that where 
three are spoken of, it refers to persons ; and where one 
is spoken of, it refers to substance or nature. And of 
course the same applies: to all the attributes, including 
God and Lord, though the statements here are often 
thought to be a contradiction in terms. But this is not 
the case. For the Creed nowhere asserts that there are 
three Gods and yet but one God, which would be a 
contradiction in terms. Nor does it say that the 
Father is a God, the Son a God, etc., which would imply 
that together there must be three Gods. What it does 
Say is that there are Three Persons, each of whom is 
God, and yet but one God ; and though this statement, 
if tt stood alone, might be thought unintelligible, yet 
considering the position it occupies in the Creed its 
meaning is quite clear. God is Three in regard to 
Personality, and One in regard to Nature. 

While, however, admitting that this is the un- 
doubted meaning of all these verses, it is important 
to add that the words seem to imply some closer 
union between the Divine Persons than that of merely 

possessing in common one Divine Nature. And, 
therefore, the human analogy before considered is 
_ misleading in some respects. Moreover, three men do 
17—2 


260 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIII. 


not make up the whole of humanity, but the three 
Divine Persons do make up the whole of the Godhead. 
In the same way the names given to these Divine 
Persons are not independent names like those of 
different men or of heathen gods, each of whom might 
exist separately ; but they are all velatwve names, each 
implying the others. Thus the Father implies the Son, 
for Fatherhood would be meaningless without Sonship ; 
and of course an Everlasting Father implies an Ever- 
lasting Son, so that any idea of priority in point of time, 
as in the case of a human father and son, is out of the 
question. Similarly the Son implies the Father, and 
the Spirit implies Him whose Spirit He is. : 

And though these names are no doubt very inade- 
quate, for human language is but the record of human 
experience, and cannot therefore express that of which — 
we have no experience whatever, such as the nature of 
God; yet no better ones can be suggested, and they 
certainly convey the idea of the Divine Persons being 
of the same Nature or Substance, which is the all- 
important point. We conclude then that the Doctrine 
of the Trinity means the existence of three Divine 
Persons, each possessing in its entirety the one Divine 
Nature, and closely united together in an unknown, but 
~ not therefore incredible, manner. 

Before passing on it may be mentioned that numerous 
analogies from nature have been suggested for the 
doctrine of the Trinity. None of them, as we should 
expect, are at all satisfactory, since the universe cannot 
afford an adequate analogy to its Maker, any more than 
the works of man can afford an adequate analogy to the 


CHRISTIANITY. 261 


man himself, but still they are better than nothing. 
Perhaps one of the least inadequate is that of solar light, 
colour, and heat. Each is in a certain sense solar 
radiance, and each is distinct from the others ; and yet 
they are so closely united that together they form but 
oneradiance. Each is also co-extensive with the others 
in time and space. There never was a time when there 
was sunlight without colour and heat; and if one is 
eternal and omnipresent, so are the others. Each is 
_ also in its true nature unknowable, and each is, as a 
tule, invisible. But just as solar colour may be mani- 
fested to us as the rainbow at a particular time and 
place, and yet be omnipresent all the time, so Christians 
believe that God the Son was manifested to the world 
at a particular time and place, yet remaining omni_ 
present all the time. And just as heat, though 
invisible, pervades the whole universe, and is the source 
of all life, so Christians believe that the Holy Spirit, 
though invisible, is omnipresent, and, as the Creed says, 
the Giver of Life. And theanalogy could be illustrated 
in many other details if necessary. 

(2.) Its credibility. 

Having now discussed the meaning of the Christian 
doctrine, we have next to consider whether it is credible. 
It must of course be admitted that the doctrine is very 
mysterious, and though fairly intelligible as a doctrine, 
is extremely hard to realise (and some might say incon- 
ceivable) when we try to picture to ourselves what the 
doctrine actually means. But we must remember that 
the nature of God is anyhow almost inconceivable, even 
as simple Theism. We cannot picture to ourselves a 


262 - THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. 


Being Who is omnipresent,—in this room, for instance, 
as well as on distant stars. Nor can we imagine a 
Being Who is grieved every time we commit sin, for 
if so, considering there are over twelve hundred million 
persons in the world, He must be grieved many 
thousands of times every second ; as well as being glad 
whenever anyone resists sin, also, let us hope, several 
thousand times a second. All this may be true, just as 
the marvels of science—the luminiferous ether, for in- 


stance, with its millions of vibrations every second— - 


may be true, but our minds are quite unable to realise 
any of them. 

Thus, as said in Chapter III., though we have ample 
means of knowing what God is im His relation to us as 
our Creator and Judge, yet as to His real nature we 
know next to nothing. Nor is this surprising when we 
remember that the only being who in any way resembles 
God is man ; and that man’s nature, notwithstanding all 
our opportunities of studying it, still remains a mystery. 

Now Christianity does attempt (in its doctrine of the 
Trinity) to state what the Deity is in Himself, and 
apart from His relation to us, or His operations in 
nature ; and that this should be to a great extent in- 
conceivable to our minds seems a necessity of the case. 
Indeed, any doctrine of the Deity which we could 


thoroughly understand would be self-condemned, for » 


the nature of God must be to a great extent beyond 
human understanding, just as the nature of man is 
beyond the understanding of animals; though they 
may realise what man is ¢o them, in his power or his 
kindness, And for all we know plurality in unity, like 


CHRISTIANITY. 263 


omnipresence, may be one of the unique attributes of 
the Deity, which cannot be understood (because it 
cannot be shared) by anyone else. The mysteriousness 
of the Christian doctrine is therefore, if we may use the 
expression, befitting the mysteriousness of its Subject ; 
and it is certainly not incredible on this account. 

(3.) Its relation to Natural Theology. 

Lastly we must ask, how does the Christian doctrine 
of God agree with that of Natural Theology ? There is 
of course no possible contradiction between the two, for 
the arguments of Natural Religion, though they show 
the Unity of God, go no further than a unity of outward 
action ; they do not and cannot tell us what this one 
God is in Himself, whether He exists as one or more 
Persons. In the same way (if we may without irrever- 
ence take a homely illustration) a dozen letters might 
be so extremely alike as to show that they were all 
written by one man, but this would not tell us what the 
man was 7” himself,»-whether, for instance, he had a 
body and mind alone, or whether he had also a spirit or 
free will, or how these were related to one another. 
And therefore Natural Religion in no way conflicts with 
Christianity. 

But still it is often thought that the Trinitarian 
doctrine is much more difficult to believe than the 
Unitarian, and perhaps it seems so at first sight. But 
there are certainly some reasons for thinking the 
contrary, for Unitarianism has been well described 
as the easiest Religion to get, but the hardest to keep. 
On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is 
addressed to the reason; it requires thinking about 


264 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIIT. 


and studying, but when carefully considered, it seems 
to many to be less difficult to believe than simple 
Theism. 

In the first place, the Christian doctrine meets to a 
great extent what is perhaps the chief difficulty of 
Theism, that of conceiving of an Infinite God who is 
yet Personal. For, as shown in Chapter III., person- 
ality seems to imply a limitation and separation of 
some kind; and therefore an eternal Person would 
require something else eternal, from which he is 
separated ; and Natural Theology cannot of course 
supply this,:though Christianity can, as it believes in 
more than one Divine Person. Thus on the Trini- 
tarian theory God is complete in Himself, and con- 
tains in His own Being all that is needed for His own 
perfection ; whereas, on the Unitarian theory we have 
either a solitary Being dwelling alone from all eternity, 
or else we must make the universe itself eternal to be 
His companion. 

And both these theories have enormous difficulties. 
Take for instance the attributes of Power and Wisdom, 
both of which, as we have seen, are necessarily involved 
in the idea of a Personal Being, able to design. How 
could a solitary God dwelling alone before the Creation 
of the world have been able to exercise either His 
Power or His Wisdom? As far as we can judge there 
could have been no object for either. His Power could 
have produced nothing, His Wisdom could have thought 
of nothing. He would have been a potential God only, 
with all His capacities unrealised. And when care- 
fully considered, such a‘ view seems quite incredible. 


: 


CHRISTIANITY. 265 


And yet the only other alternative requires not only 
that the world itself should be eternal; but makes it 
in reality as necessary to God, as God is to the world ; 
and this is hardly a satisfactory theory. 

Nor is it in any way an adequate one. For though 
a material universe, existing eternally, might supply 
an object for God’s Power and Wisdom, yet as we have 
seen God possesses moral attributes as well, such as 
Goodness. He is in fact a Moral, as well as a Personal 
Being. And all moral attributes—everything con- 
nected with right and.wrong—can only be thought of 

as existing between two persons. We cannot be good 
to an atom of hydrogen, or unjust to a molecule of 
water. We can it is true be kind to animals, but this 
is simply because they resemble personal beings in 
having a capacity for pleasure and pain. But moral 
attributes in their highest perfection can only exist 
between two persons. And therefore as the eternal 
God possesses, and must always have possessed, such 
attributes, it seems to require some other eternal 
Person. And yet the idea of there being another God 
is scarcely conceivable ; so we can only conclude (how- 
ever hard it may be to realise) that there must be more 
than one Person, and yet but one God. 

The argument is no doubt a difficult one to follow, 
but a single example will help to explain it. Take 
for instance the attribute of Jove. This, unless it is 
_ mere self-love, requires at least two persons—one to 
love, the other to be loved. And therefore if love has 
always been an attribute of the Deity, it requires either 
some other Eternal (and therefore Divine) Person to be 


266 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. 


loved ; or else that God should have been eternally 
creating persons, like men or angels, as objects of His 
love. And this latter seems not only improbable, but 
also inadequate, as love, in its perfection, can only 
exist between two beings of the same nature. And yet, 
when we think of the meaning of the term God, His 
omnipresence and omnipotence, it seems impossible 
that there can be more than one. We are then forced 
into this dilemma: we must believe in at least two 
Eternal Persons, and yet in but one God; and the 
Christian doctrine of the Trinity in Unity seems the 
least difficult explanation. 

But this is not all, for Natural Theology itself leads 
us to look upon the Deity in three distinct ways. 
We may think of Him as the Eternal, Self-Existent 
One, the Absolute and Unconditioned of modern 
philosophy. Or we may think of Him as the Creator 
and ‘Evolver of the Universe, the Upholder of each 
planet, the Designer of each plant; the Being by 
Whom the world was made, and Who perhaps will 
one day be its Judge. Or, again, we may think of 
Him in His relation to ourselves as a Divine Spirit, 
holding intercourse with our spirits, and speaking to 
us by our conscience. And yet our reason compels 
us to acknowledge that the Divine Persons we thus 
contemplate are but one God. And what is this but 
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in Unity ? 

Or, to otherwise express it, according to philosophy, 
the Deity is a Tvanscendent God, dwelling apart from 
Nature, above and beyond the world. According to 
science, He is an Immanent God, dwelling within 


CHRISTIANITY. 267 


Nature, the Omnipresent but Unknown Power which 
is everywhere working. The former corresponds to 
the mechanical idea of the universe, regarding God as 
a Being who long ago made a perfect world, and has 
-since left it to itself; the latter to the organic idea, 
regarding God as still acting throughout the universe. 
Both ideas may be illustrated, though of course im- 
perfectly, by human analogy; for our spirit both 
transcends matter, being above and distinct: from our 
bodies, and is also immanent in matter. The former 
view leads to what is called Deism, the latter to Pan- 
theism in its higher forms. And considering how strong 
a hold both these doctrines have had on the human 
mind in all ages, there is doubtless some truth in each. 
Christianity alone unites the two doctrines, and de- 
clares that God is both Transcendent and Immanent, 
as well as bearing some close relationship to our- 
selves, being in fact immanent in man as well as in 
Nature, of which our conscience is a perpetual witness. 

Or, to repeat it once more in a slightly different 
form: there are, as is well known, three main argu- 
ments in favour of the existence of God. The first, 
or that from Causation, is derived from the universe 
requiring an external Cause to account for it, and leads 
to the God of Philosophy. The second, or that from 
Design, leads to the ever-active God of Nature. While 
the third, or Moral argument, leads to the God of 
Conscience. Now each of these arguments has been 
already considered in Chapters I., II., and V., and each 
appears to be sound, and to require a distinct Divine 
Person ; and yet it is obvious all the time that there 


268 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XII. 


can be but one God. And what, again, is this but the 
Christian doctrine of the Trinity in Unity : the Father 
the Source of all, the Son by Whom all things were 
made, and the Spirit bearing witness with our spirits ; 
and yet not three Gods, but one God? It is not, of 
course, meant that the God of Philosophy, of Nature, 
and of Conscience correspond accurately with the 
Three Persons of the Christian Trinity, still less that 
the Christian doctrine could have been derived from 
any such speculations; but merely that when the 
two are compared there is seen to be a certain harmony 
between them. | 

On the whole, then, we decide that the Doctrine of 


the Trinity is certainly credible and perhaps slightly 


probable ; for to put it shortly, Nature forces us to 
believe in a personal God, and yet, when we reflect on 
the subject, the idea of a personal God, Who is only one 
Person, seems scarcely tenable. 

(B.) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION. 


We next come to the doctrine of the Incarnation, — 


which however is so clearly stated in the Athanasian 
Creed, that its meaning is quite plain. God the Son, 
we are told, the second Person of the Trinity, was 
pleased to become Man and to be born of the Virgin 
Mary, so that He is now both God and Man. He is 
God (from all eternity) of the Substance or Nature 
of His Divine Father, and Man (since the Incarnation) 
of the Substance or Nature of His human Mother; 
complete God and complete Man ; equal to the Father 
as concerning His Godhead (for He is of the same 
Nature) and inferior to the Father as concerning His 


ie S/n | 


CHRISTIANITY. 269 


Manhood (for human nature is necessarily inferior 
to the Divine). Moreover, though He possesses these 
two Natures, they are not changed one into the other, 
or confused together, but each remains distinct, though 
both are united in His One Person. This is in brief 
the doctrine of the Incarnation, and we will first con- 
sider its difficulties, then its motive, and then its 
historical position. 

(x.) Its difficulties. 

The first of these is that the Incarnation would be 
a change in the existence of God, Who is the change- 
less One. He, it is urged, is omnipresent and always 
the same, whereas an Incarnation would imply that 
at some particular time and place a momentous change 
occurred, and for ever afterwards God became different 
from what He had been for ever before. 

This is no doubt a serious objection, but it must not 
be exaggerated. For an Incarnation would not strictly 
speaking involve any change in the Divine Nature itself. 
God the Son remained completely and entirely God all 
the time, He was not (as just said) in any way changed 
into a man, only He united to Himself a human nature 
as well. And then as to God’s being brought into rela- 
tion with time and place, the creation of the world did 
this long ago, for He created it, or began to create it, at 
a certain definite time, and in a certain definite place. 
And the same applies to the creation of man. And 
perhaps if we knew more of the Nature of God, and 
also of the nature of man, who we must remember was 
made to some extent in the image of God, and this 
possibly with a view to the Incarnation, we should see 


270 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIII. 


that it was just as natural for God to become Man, as 
it was for God to create man. We have really nothing 
to argue from. An Incarnation seems improbable, and 
that is all we can say. 

But if it took place at all, there is nothing surprising 
in this planet being the one chosen for it. Indeed, as far 
as we know, it is the only one that could be chosen, 
since it is the only one which contains personal and 
moral beings in whom God could become incarnate. 
Of course other planets may contain such beings ; but 
as said before (Chapter V.) this is only a conjecture, 
and in the light of recent investigations not a very 
probable one. While if they do contain such beings, 
these may not have sinned, in which case our little 
world, with its erring inhabitants, would be like the 
lost sheep in the parable, the only one which the Ruler 
of the Universe had to come and save. 

The second difficulty is, that the Incarnation would 
lead to a compound Being, who is both Divine and 
human at the same time, and this is thought to be 
inconceivable. But here the answer is obvious, and is 
suggested by the Athanasian Creed. Man himself is a 
compound being ; he is the union of a material body 
and an immaterial spirit, in a single person. And the 
Incarnation in which Christians believe is the union of 
the Divine Nature and the human nature in a single 
Person. Both appear equally improbable, and equally 
inconceivable to our minds, if we try and think out all 
that they involve ; but as the one is actually true, the 
other is certainly not incredible. 

The third and last of these difficulties refers to the 


eI eee es —— re 


hee r- 
a 


CHRISTIANITY. 271 


miraculous Virgin-bivth. But if we admit the possi- 
bility of an Incarnation, no method of bringing it about 
can be pronounced incredible. The event, if true, is 
necessarily unique, and cannot be supposed to come 
under the ordinary laws of nature. Indeed, that a 
child born in the usual way should be the Eternal God, 
is just as miraculous as if He were born in any other 
way. While considering that one object of the alleged 
Incarnation was to promote moral virtues in man, such 
as purity, the virgin-birth was most suitable, and 
formed an appropriate. beginning for a sinless life. 

(2.) Its motive. 

But we now come to a more important point, for the 
Incarnation, if true, must have been the most momen- 
tous event in the world’s history ; and can we imagine 
a sufficient reason for it ? God we may be sure does 
not act without motives, and what adequate motive 
can be suggested for the Incarnation? Now the 
alleged motive, indeed the fundamental axiom of 
Christianity, is that God Joves man, and as a natural 
consequence wishes man to love Him. Is this then 
incredible, or even improbable? Certainly not, for 
several reasons. 

To begin with, as we have already shown, God is a 
Personal and Moral Being, Who cares for the welfare 
of His creatures, more especially for man. And this, 
allowing for the imperfection of human language, may 
be described as God’s loving man, since disinterested 
love for another cannot be thought an unworthy attri- 
bute to ascribe to the Deity. On the other hand, man 
is also a personal and moral being, able to some extent 


272 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIII. | 


to return God’s love. And to this must be added 
the fact that man, at least some men, do not seem 
altogether unworthy of God's love, while we certainly do 
not know of any other being who is more worthy of it. 
Moreover, considering the admitted resemblance 
between God and man, the analogy of human parents 
loving their children is not inappropriate. Human 
parents often love their children intensely, and will 
sometimes even die for them; while, as a rule, the 
better the parents are the more they love their children, 
and this in spite of the children having many faults. 
Is it, then, unlikely that the Creator may love His 
children also, and that human love may be but a reflec- 
tion of this—a further application of the admitted law 
that man is made in the image of God ? The evidence we — 
have may be slight, but it all points the same way. 
Now, if it be granted that God loves man, we have 
plainly no means of estimating the extent of this love. 
But by comparing the other attributes of God, such as 
His wisdom and His power, with the similar attributes — 
of man, we should expect God’s love to be infinitely 
greater than any human love; so great indeed that He 
would be willing to make any sacrifice in order to gain 
what is the object in all love, that it should be 
returned. Might not then God’s love induce Him to 
become Man, that He might the better win man’s love ? 
And it must be remembered that man’s love, like his 
will, is free. Compulsory love is in the nature of things 
impossible, and therefore God cannot force man to love 
Him, He can only induce Him ; and what inducement 
can be suggested more powerful than the Incarnation ? 


CHRISTIANITY. 273 


For it shows, as nothing else can show, that God’s love 
is a self-sacrificing love; and this is the highest form 
of love. Indeed, if it were not so, in other words, if 
God’s love cost Him nothing, it would be in this 
respect inferior to that of many men. But if, on the 
other hand, God’s love involved self-sacrifice ;—if it led 
to Calvary—then it is the highest possible form of love. 
And then we see that God’s attributes are all, so to 
speak, on the same scale; and His Goodness is as far 
above any human goodness, as the Power which rules 
the universe is above any human power ; or the Wisdom 
which designed all nature is above any human wisdom. 
And thus, if the Incarnation still seems inconceivable, 
may it not be simply because the love of God, like His 
other attributes, is so inconceivably greater than any- 
thing we can imagine ? 

Moreover a self-sacrificing love is the form which of 
all others is most likely to lead to its being returned. 
And experience proves that this has actually been the 
case. The condescending love of Christ in His life, 
and still more in His death, forms an overpowering 
motive which, when once realised, has always. been 
irresistible. 

But more than this. Not only does the Incarnation 
afford the strongest possible motive for man to love - 
God, but it enables him to do so in a way which nothing 
else could. Man, it is true, often longs for some means 
of intercourse or communion with the Deity, but yet 
this seems impossible. The gulf which separates the 
Creator from the creature is infinite, and can never 
be bridged over by man, or even by an angel, or other 

18 


274 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. ‘CHAP, XIII, 


intermediate being. For a bridge must of necessity - 


touch both sides ,; so if the gulf is to be bridged over 
at all, it can only be by One Who is at the same time 
both God and Man. Thus the Incarnation brings God, 
if we may use the expression, within measurable dis- 
tance of man, so that the latter has no mere abstract 
and invisible Being to love, but a definite Person, 
Whose Character he can appreciate and Whose conduct 
he can to some extent follow. In short, the Incarna- 
tion presents man with a worthy Object for his love and 
devotion, and yet with an Object Whom he can partly 
at least understand and partly imitate. And he is 
thus able to become in a still truer sense a child of God, 
or, as it is commonly expressed, God became Man that 
man might become as far as possible like God. - 

And this leads us to another aspect of the Incarna- 
tion. Christ’s life was meant to be an example to man, 
and it is clear that a perfect example could only be 
given by a Being Who is both.God and Man. For God 
alone is above human imitation, and even the best of 
men have many faults ; so that from the nature of the 
case, Christ, and Christ alone, can present us with a 
perfect example, for being Man He is capable of 
imitation, and being God He is worthy of it. 

Now what follows from this? If Christ’s life was 
meant to be an example to man, it was essential that 
it should be one of suffering, or the example would 
have lost more than half its value. Man does not want 
to be shown how to live in prosperity, but how to live 
in adversity, and how to suffer patiently. The deser- 
tion of friends, the malice of enemies, and a cruel death 


CHRISTIANITY. 275 


s 


are the occasional lot of all mankind. They are perhaps 
the hardest things a man-has to bear in this world,and 
they have often had to be borne by the followers of 
Christ. Is it incredible, then, that He should have 
_ given them an example of the perfect way of doing so ; 
gently rebuking His friends, praying for His murderers, 
and acting throughout as only a perfect man could act ? 
Of course it may be said that such a life and death are 
degrading to the Deity ; and no doubt they seem so at 
first sight. But, strictly speaking, suffering, if borne 
voluntarily and for the benefit of others, is not de- 
grading, especially if the benefit could not be obtained 
- In any other way. 

When we consider all this, it is plain that many 
reasons can be given for the Incarnation. Of course 
it may be replied that they are not adequate; but 
we have no means of knowing whether God would 
consider them adequate or not. His ideas are not like 
ours ; for what adequate motive can we suggest for 
His creating man at all, let alone all the lower animals ? 
But yet He has done so. And having created man 
and given him free will, and man having misused 
his free will, all of which is admitted, that God should 
endeavour to restore man cannot be thought in- 
credible. Indeed it seems almost due to Himself that 
He should try and prevent His noblest work from 
being a failure. And if in addition to this God loves 
man still, in spite of his sins, then some intervention on 
his behalf seems almost probable. And God may thus 
have designed the Incarnation, leading up to the Atone- 
ment, as a vemedy for man’s sin. And assuming man to 

18—2 


276 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. ~ 


retain his free will, and not to be obliged to forsake sin, 
the remedy has doubtless been as successful as possible. 

And thus the Incarnation removes any remaining 
difficulty that may be felt in regard to God’s permitting 
evil to enter the world ; since He foresaw not only the 
disease but its remedy, and in due time brought it 
about. This is, of course, only one reason for the 
Incarnation, and had man never sinned it would 
probably have taken place. It was, as the Nicene 
Creed says, for us men, and not merely for our salva- 
tion, that Christ came down from heaven ; and it is 
unreasonable to think that the benefits of the Incarna- 
tion, such as uniting the human nature to the Divine, 
showing man what God is, and what he himself ought 
to be, are all the result of man’s sin. But if an Incarna- 
tion for sinless men would be credible, still more is 
it so for sinners, who are in such need of help and 
guidance. | 

(3.) Its historical position. 

It may still be objected that if the foregoing reasons 
are really sufficient to account for the Incarnation, it 
ought to have taken place near the commencement of 
man’s history. And no doubt when we contemplate 
the great antiquity of man, stretching back into neo- 
lithic and paleolithic times, this often seems a great 
difficulty. But we have in reality very little to judge 
by, and that little does not support the objection. For 
in nature God seems always to work by the slow and 
tedious process of evolution, not attaining the results 


He wished for all at once, but by gradual development. 


And, therefore, it is only natural that if He revealed 


CHRISTIANITY, 277 


Himself to man, it would be by the same method—at 
first indistinctly—Natural Religion, which in its ele- 
mentary stage certainly dates back to neolithic times 
(perhaps earlier), as the burial customs show a belief 
in a future life; then more clearly—the Jewish Re- 
figion ; and finally by becoming Man Himself—the 
Christian Religion. 

According to Christianity, the whole previous history 
of the world was really a preparation for the Incarna- 
tion. But only when the preparation was complete, 
when the fulness of the time came, as St. Paul expresses 
it,’ did it take place. And it has certainly proved, as 
we should have expected, an epoch-making event. In 
all probability the history of the world will always be 
considered relatively to it in years B.c. and a.p. And 
very possibly it has a significance far beyond man or 
even this planet. For we must remember man is not 
merely a link in a series of created beings indefinitely 
improving, in which case no doubt in future ages an 
Incarnation in man would appear as improbable as we 
should now think an Incarnation in one of the lower 
animals. But (as shown in Chapter V.) there are 
strong reasons for thinking that man is the end of the 
series, the last stage in creation, the highest organised 
being that will ever appear on this planet, or, as far 
as we know, on any planet. 

And, therefore, man’s rank in the universe cannot 
be determined by the size of this earth. Where else 
shall we find a personal and moral being with attri- 
butes superior to those of man? Where else indeed 

1 Gal. 4. 4. 


278 _ THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xu. 


shall we find a personal or moral being at all? The 
only answer science can give is nowhere. But if so, 
man’s position in the universe is one of unique pre- 
eminence. And it is this inherent greatness of man, 
as it has been called, which justifies the Incarnation. 
He ts worthy that Thou should’st do this for him. 

Moreover when we consider God the Son as the 
Divine Person who is specially immanent in nature, 
and who has been evolving the universe through count- 
less ages from its original matter into higher and higher 
forms of life, there seems a special fitness in its leading 
up to such a climax as the Incarnation ; when by be- 
coming Man He united Himself with matter in its 
highest and most perfect form. Thus the Incarnation, 
like the Copernican system of astronomy, or the theory 
of Evolution, if once accepted, throws a new light on 
the entire universe ; and it has thus a grandeur and 
impressiveness about it, which to some minds is very 
attractive. On the whole, then, we decide that the 
doctrine is certainly not incredible, though it is no 
doubt improbable. 

(C.) THE DocrrinE OF THE. ATONEMENT. 

We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, 
which is that Christ’s death was in some sense a 
sacrifice for sin, and thus reconciled (or made ‘ at-one ’) 
God the Father and sinful man. And though not 
formally stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the 
words, Was crucified also for us, and Who suffered for 
our salvation. 

The chief objections to the doctrine are of course on 
moral grounds. The idea of atonement, it is said, or 


CHRISTIANITY. 279 


of one man being made to suffer as a substitute for 
another, and thus appeasing the Deity, was well-nigh 
universal in early times, and is so still among savage 
_ nations. Such a sacrifice, however, is a great injustice 
to the victim ; it ascribes an unworthy character to 
God, as the Judge, Who it assumes can be satisfied 
with the punishment of an innocent man in place 
of the guilty one; and is demoralising to the sinner, 
on whose behalf the sacrifice is offered, allowing him 
_ to sin on with impunity, provided he can find another 
substitute when needed. 

The answer to this objection is, that it takes no 
account of the most important part of the Christian 
doctrine, which is the willingness of the Victim. Ac- 
cording to Christianity, Christ was a willing Sacrifice, 
Who freely laid down His life ;} while the human 
sacrifices above alluded to were not willing sacrifices, 
since the victims had no option in the matter. And, 
as we shall see, this alters the case completely both 
in regard to the victim himself, the judge, and the 
sinner. 

(1.) As to the Victim. 

It is plain that his willingness does away with the 
injustice altogether. There is no injustice in accept- 
ing a volunteer for any painful office provided he 
thoroughly knows what he is doing, for he need not 
undertake it unless he likes. 

(2.) As to the Judge. 

Next it will be seen that the willingness of the 
_ victim changes the manner in which the sacrifice 
1 F.g., John 10. 18. 


- 


280 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIII. 


appeals to the judge. A mere substitution sacrifice 
appeals to his sense of 7ustzce, and endeavours to satisfy 
it by giving, as far as possible, a literal fulfilment of 
justice, modified only in the one respect of the punish- 
ment not being borne by the guilty person. 

But a willing sacrifice appeals not to his justice, 
but to his mercy ; it endeavours, so to say, to stimulate 
this element of mercy and to soften his heart. That 
it would have this effect in human cases is almost 
certain. If a judge had before him a criminal who 
well deserved punishment, but a good man, perhaps 
the judge’s own son, came forward, and not only inter- 
ceded for the prisoner, but was so devotedly attached 
to him as to offer to bear his punishment (pay his fine, 
for instance), this would certainly influence the judge 
in his favour. It would show that he was not so hope- 
lessly bad after all, and the judge would feel more 
inclined to be merciful. Justice and mercy, then, 
though hard to reconcile, are both facts of human 
nature ; and it is also a fact of human nature, that the 
voluntary suffering, or willingness to suffer, of a good 
man for a criminal whom he deeply loves, does incline 
man to mercy rather than justice. 

Now, have we any reason for thinking that God also 
combines, in their highest forms, these seemingly 
inconsistent attributes of justice and mercy? Cer- — 
tainly we have ; for, as shown in Chapter V., Natural 
Theology, not to mention the Jewish Religion, leads 
us to ascribe to God precisely such a combination. 
As there shown, the suffering in this world forces us 
to conclude that the goodness of God is not simple 


\ 


CHRISTIANITY. 281 


beneficence, but this combined with some _ other 
attribute which we called righteousness. And these 
general terms, when applied to the special case of 
judging sinners, closely correspond to mercy and jus- 
tice. God, as we have seen, combines both these 
attributes, and a combination of both is required 
by the Christian doctrine. Mercy alone would have 
forgiven men without any atonement; justice alone 
would not have forgiven them at all. But God is both 
merciful and just, and therefore the idea that volun- 
tary atonement might incline Him to mercy rather 
than justice does not seem incredible. 

And this is precisely the Christian doctrine. The 
mercy of God the Father is called out towards sinful 
man by Christ’s generous sacrifice of Himself on 
man’s behalf; so that, to put it shortly, God forgives 
sins for Christ's sake. And it should be noticed the 
idea of sins being forgiven which occurs all through 
the New Testament, and is alluded to in the Apostles’ 
Creed, shows that Christ’s Atonement was not that 
of a mere substitute, for then no forgiveness would 
have been necessary. If, for example, I owe a man 
a sum of money, and a friend pays it for me, I do 
not ask the man to forgive me the debt; I have no 
need of any forgiveness. But if, instead of paying 
it, he merely intercedes for me, then the man may 
forgive me the debt for my friend’s sake. And this 
corresponds to this aspect of the Christian doctrine ; 
for the Atonement, like the Incarnation, is a many- 
sided doctrine, which can be regarded from various 
points of view. 


282 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. — 


We must also remember that though for con- 
venience we speak of justice and mercy as two separate _ 
attributes of the Deity, they are probably closely con- 
nected together. God is not sometimes merciful and 
sometimes just, but He is always both, that is to say, 
His one Character always involves elements of what 
we call mercy and justice. 

It may still be objected that however noble it may 
have been for Christ to have offered Himself as a 
sacrifice for man, it hardly seems right for the offer 
to have been accepted. But here we must remember 
the mysterious union which exists between the Persons 
of the Trinity. It is the Son Himself Who, in a certain 
sense, by virtue of His union with the F ather, both 
offers and accepts the offer. While on the other hand, 
the love of the Father in giving His Son to be a sacrifice 
for man is emphasised in Scripture, just as much as 
the love of the Son in freely becoming that Sacrifice, 
Thus the Father’s love for sinful man was the cause, 
and not the effect of Christ’s Atonement. 

Of course it may be said that this is only shirking 
a difficulty by having recourse to mysteries. But the 
answer is obvious. The mystery of the Atonement is 
an essential part of the doctrine. Christians do not 
believe in an atonement effected by anyone who was 
not both God and Man. On the contrary, they assert 
that no one else could have effected it. It is the 
position which Christ occupies towards God on the 
one hand, as being His eternal Son, and towards man- 
kind and the world on the other, as being in a special 
sense their Creator and Maintainer, which renders Him 


CHRISTIANITY. 283 


the only possible Mediator between the two. Thus He 
is not an intervening third between God and man, any 
more than man is an intervening third between matter 
and spirit. He is Himself complete God, and complete 
Man ; the Son of God, and the Son of Man, to use the 
striking titles which He adopted ; and therefore in dis- 
cussing the Christian doctrine, we cannot argue as if 
He were only aman. To do this would be to destroy 
its naturalness altogether. Nor, on the other hand, 
must we forget the close union which is said to 
exist between Christ and His followers, even as close 
as that between a vine and its branches, or a body 
and its limbs ; and this, however mysterious it may be, 
also lessens the difficulty to some extent. 

One more point has to be noticed under this head. 
Christ, by His Incarnation, became, in a unique sense, 
the Representative of mankind, since it was human 
nature and not a human person that He then united to 
Himself. In the*case of ordinary men, this nature is 
inherited from their parents and developed round a 
new person ; but in the case of Christ it was inherited . 
from His mother and developed round the pre-existing 
Person of the Son of God, so that His human nature 
as such was impersonal. In other words, to quote the 
Nicene Creed, Christ became Man, not a man. And 
the distinction is important, for had He been a man, 
He could not have represented alJ men. But by His 
taking human nature in the abstract, as we may call 
it, He represented, as no one else could, the entire 
race, and He suffered as such; so that to this extent 

Psjohn. 165°" Eph. 4; 15-76: : 


284 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. 


there was a kind of fulfilment of justice. Thus, on 
the whole, though Christ did not, strictly speaking, 
bear man’s punishment, His sufferings and death 
procured man’s pardon ; He suffered on our behalf, 
though not in our stead. 

(3.) As to the sinner. 

Lastly, as to the effect of the willingness of the victim 
on the sinner. Of course, on the mere substitution 
theory, justice would be satisfied, and a criminal might 
sin on as much as he liked, provided he could be sure 
of finding another substitute when wanted. But if 
the changed attitude of the judge is due, not to his 
justice being satisfied, but to his mercy being stimu- 


lated, this is plainly conditional on a moral change ~ 


in the sinner himself. A good man suffering for a 
criminal would not alter our feelings towards him if 
he obstinately chose to remain acriminal. And this is 
in exact harmony with the Christian doctrine, which is 
that sinners cannot expect to avail themselves of 
Christ’s Atonement if they wilfully continue in sin; so 
that repentance is a necessary condition of forgiveness. 
This, it is plain, destroys altogether the objection that 
an atoning sacrifice has an immoral tendency on the 
sinners themselves ; it has precisely the opposite effect. 

And what we should thus expect theoretically has 
been amply confirmed by experience. No one will deny 
that Christians in all ages have embraced the doctrine 
of the Atonement with the utmost devotion. They 
have asserted that it is the cause of all their joy in this 
world and all their hope for the next. And yet, so far 
from having had a bad influence, it has led them to the 


7 
a a as ee 


CHRISTIANITY. 285 


most noble and self-sacrificing lives. It has saved them 
from sim, and not only from the penalties of sin, and this 
is exactly what was required. The greatness of man’s 
sin, and the misery it causes in the world, are but too 
evident apart from Christianity. And the Atonement 
was a ‘ vast remedy for this vast evil.’ And if we 
- admit the end, that man had to be redeemed from sin, 
impressed with the guilt of sin, and helped to resist sin, 
we cannot deny the appropriateness of the means, 
which, as a matter of fact, has so often brought it about. 
This completes a brief'examination of the moral objec- 
tions to the Atonement ; and it is clear that the willing- 
ness of the Victim makes the whole difference, whether 
we regard them as referring to the Victim himself, the 
Judge, or the sinner. 

(D.) THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 

The last great Christian doctrine is that of the 
Resurrection. According to Christianity, all men 
are to rise again, with their bodies partly changed 
and rendered incorruptible ; and the Resurrection of 
Christ’s Body was both a pledge of this, and also to 
some extent an example of what a risen body would be 
like. He was thus, as the Bible says, the firstborn from 
the dead.t_ Now this word firstborn implies, to begin 
with, that none had been so born before, the cases of 
Lazarus, etc., being those of resuscitation and. not 
resurrection ; they lived again to die again, and their 
bodies were unchanged. And it implies, secondly, that 
others would be so born afterwards, so that our risen 
bodies will resemble His. The Resurrection of Christ 

tT Corerareoen Coll 385 Rev. ol: €, 


286 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuwap. xt. 


is thus represented not as something Altgeether excep- 
tional and unique, but rather as the first instance of 
what will one day be the universal rule. It shows us 
the last stage in man’s long development, what he is 
intended to become when he is at length perfected. 
We will therefore consider first Christ’s Resurrection, 
and then man’s resurrection. 

(I.) Christ's Resurrection. 

Now according to the Gospels, Christ’s Risen Body 
combined material and immaterial properties in a very 
remarkable manner. Thus He could be touched and 
eat food, and yet apparently pass through closed doors 
and vanish at pleasure ; and this is often thought to be 
incredible. But though we know very little about semz- 
_ Spiritual substances, that little is enough to show that 
it is not incredible. For the nearest approach to one 
of which we have any scientific knowledge is the 
luminiferous zther, and this also seems to combine 
spiritual and material properties in a remarkable 
manner, being in some respects more like a solid than 
a gas. And yet it can pass through all material sub- 
stances, and allows ‘them to pass through it without 
any appreciable resistance. This fact certainly pre- 
vents us from saying that it is incredible that Christ’s 
semi-spiritual body should pass through closed doors. 

Indeed for all we know, it may be one of the pro- 
perties of spiritual beings, that they can pass through 
material substances (just as the Réntgen rays can) and 
be generally invisible ; and yet be able, if they wish, to 
assume some of the properties of matter, such as 
becoming visible or audible. In fact unless they were 


CHRISTIANITY. 287 


_ able to do this, it is hard to see how they could make 
themselves manifest at all. And we must remember 
it is never said that Christ was visible and invisible at 
the same time, which would be a contradiction ; but 
that He appeared to the Apostles, or showed Himself to 
them, and afterwards that He vanished, literally ceased 
to be seen of them, all of which imply that He became 
visible or not at pleasure. 

Nor again is there anything incredible in this, for 
man, we know, does not see all that is to be seen even 
in nature, e.g., the ultra-violet rays. And a slight 
alteration in the waves of light coming from a body 
would make it visible or not to the human eye; and 
it is out of the question to say that God—the Omni- 
potent One—could not produce such a change at 
pleasure, in a spiritual body. And foraspirit to become 
tangible, or to take food, is not really more wonderful 
(though it seems so) than for it to become visible or 
audible ; since when once we pass the boundary between 
the natural and the supernatural everything is 
mysterious. 

It may of course be replied that though all this is 
not perhaps incredible, it is still most improbable ; and 
no doubt itis. But what then? Wehaveno adequate 
‘Means of judging, for the fact if true is, up to the 
present, unique. It implies a new mode of existence 
which is neither spiritual nor material, and of which 
we have no experience whatever. And therefore until 
We receive new powers of apprehension, we are naturally 
unable to understand what it is like. But assuming the — 
resurrection of Christ to be otherwise credible, as it - 


288 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII. 


certainly is if we admit His Incarnation and Death, we 
cannot call it incredible merely because the properties 
of His risen body are alleged to be different from those 
of ordinary human bodies, and in some respects to 
resemble those of spirits. It is in fact only what we 
should expect. | 

(2.) Man’s Resurrection. 

Next as to man’s resurrection. The Christian 
doctrine of the resurrection of the body must not be 
confused with the immortality of the spirit, discussed in 
Chapter V., which is common to many religions, and is 
certainly not improbable. But two objections may be 
made to the resurrection of the body. 

The first is that it is ¢mpossible, since the human body 
decomposes after death, and its molecules may be sub- 
sequently incorporated into other bodies. And thus, 
if all men were to rise again at the same time, the same 
molecules might have to be in two places at once. But 
the fallacy here is obvious, for the molecules composing 
a man’s body are continually changing during life, and 


it is probable that every one of them is changed in a 


few years; and yet the identity of the body is not 
destroyed. This identity depends not on the identity 
of the molecules, but on their relative position and 
numbers ; so that a man’s body is in this respect like 
a whirlpool in a stream, the water composing which is 
continually changing, though the whirlpool itself re- 
mains. And therefore the resurrection need not be a 
resurrection of relics, as it is sometimes called, and this 


removes at once the apparent impossibility of the — 


doctrine. 


ee ee ee 


CHRISTIANITY. 289 


Secondly, it may still be objected that the doctrine is 
extremely improbable. Andnodoubtitseemsso. But 
once more we have no adequate means of judging. 
Certainly, that a man who has once lived should be 
raised to life again is not antecedently more improbable 
than that he should have lived at all. Indeed the 
origin of life seems of the two to be the more mys- 
terious. Again, apart from experience, how very 
improbable it would be that a seed when buried in the 
ground should develop into a plant ; or that plants and 
trees, after being apparently dead all through the winter, 
should blossom again in the spring. Thus everything 
connected with life is so mysterious that we can 
decide nothing a priori, and experience must be our 
only guide. And therefore we cannot say what may 
or may not happen at some future time, of which we 
have no experience whatever. Indeed, if man’s spirit 
is immortal, the fact that it is associated with a body 
during its life on this earth makes it not unlikely that 
it will be associated with a body of some kind during 
its future life. 

And as to the condition of man’s risen body, that it 
should be partly spiritual, and thus resemble Christ’s 
risen body, is distinctly probable. And just as man’s 
body in this life is suited to his surroundings here, so 
we may infer that his future body will be suited to his 
surroundings hereafter ; though, not knowing what 
they will be like, we cannot say what his body will be 
like. But we may be sure of this: the infinite re- 
sources of the God of Nature are not baffled by the 
grave. His Power and Wisdom know no limits; and 


a8 


290 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xm. 


He will be able, if He wishes, to provide man with 
a body which, having no tendency to decay, will be a 
suitable instrument for the noblest exertions of his 
mind and will. 

And then as to the position of the future heaven. 
It may be on some other planet, where God will 
specially manifest His presence, and where sin, pain, 
and death will be unknown. Or it may be the name 
for some unseen spiritual state, into which Christ 
passed when He left this earth, and into which the 
righteous will pass after the Judgment. And the 
existence of such a state, perhaps pervading the whole 
universe, is certainly not incredible. Indeed, the 
luminiferous ether should convince us that our senses 
are not able to perceive everything that exists, even in 
our immediate vicinity. While as to everlasting life, 
when man is not only perfect in himself, and lives in 
perfect surroundings, but enjoys the immediate presence 
of God, as well as the society of the perfect, there is 
nothing inconceivable in his being able to live for ever 
in perfect happiness. The final state of the righteous 
then presents little difficulty, but what about that of 
the wicked? This is admitted by all to be a most 
difficult subject, but as Christians themselves are not 
agreed about it, and we shall have to discuss it 
fully in Chapter XXIII., we need not consider it at 
present. 

(Z.) CONCLUSION. 

We have now examined the four great doctrines of 
Christianity, the others either following directly from 
these, or not presenting any difficulty. And though, 


CHRISTIANITY. . 291 


as we have shown, not one of these doctrines can be 

pronounced incredible, yet some of them, especially the 
“Incarnation and the Atonement, seem so very improb- 
able as to raise a strong presumption against the truth 
of the religion. This must be fully and freely admitted. 
At the same time, it is only fair to remember that this 
improbability is distinctly lessened by the following 
considerations. 

Firstly, in regard to all these doctrines we have no 
adequate means of deciding what is or is not probable. 
Reason cannot judge where it has nothing to judge 
by ; and apart from Christianity itself, we know next 
to nothing as to what was God’s purpose in creating 
man. If, then, these doctrines are true, their truth 
depends not upon reason, but upon revelation. All 
reason can do is to examine most carefully the evi- 
dence in favour of the alleged revelation. Of this 
we should expect it to be able to judge, but the 
Christian doctrines themselves are plainly above its 
jurisdiction. We are hence in a region where we 
cannot trust to our own sense of the fitness of things. 
And therefore the Christian doctrines cannot be con- 
demned merely because we think them contrary to 
our reason. 

And it is undeniable that many thoughtful men 
(including Agnostics) do not consider them so. For 
instance, the late Professor Huxley wrote in 1877, ‘I 
_have not the slightest objection to offer a priort to all 
the propositions of the Three Creeds. The mysteries of 
the Church are child’s play compared with the mysteries 
of Nature. The dactrine of the Trinity is not more 

19—2 


292 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xml. 


puzzling than the necessary antinomies’ (that is 
contradictions) ‘ of physical speculation.’? 

And this leads us on to the next point, which is that 
many other facts which are actually true appear 
equally improbable on prima facte grounds ; such, for 
instance, as the luminiferous ether and the phenomena 
of growth in the physical world, or the existence of 
evil and the freedom of man in the moral world. 
Apart from experience, what an overwhelming argu- 
ment could be made out against such facts as these ; 
and yet they concern subjects which are to a great — 
extent within our comprehension, whereas Christianity 
has to do with the nature and character of a Being 
Who is avowedly beyond our comprehension. May 
-not the difficulties in both cases, but especially in 
regard to the latter, be due to our zgnorance only ¢ 
Very possibly, to understand all the difficulties of 
Christianity, we should have to understand all the 
plans and intentions of the Infinite God, which is 
perhaps in the nature of things impossible for us finite 
men. | 
Thirdly, it should be noticed that this partial ignor- 
ance in regard to Christianity is precisely similar to 
our partial ignorance in regard to Natural Theology, 
discussed in Chapter III. We there showed that, 
though we had not a perfect knowledge of God, we 
had a sufficient knowledge for all practical purposes. 
And the same applies to Christianity. The subject 
does not claim to have been revealed in all its bearings, 


1 Quoted with his permission in Bishop Gore’s Bampton 
Lectures, 1891, p. 247, 1898 edition. 


\ 


CHRISTIANITY. | 293 


but only in so far as it concerns ourselves. Take, for 
instance, the doctrine of the Atonement. We are not 
told how much was God the Father’s part, or how much 
was Christ’s part, or the exact relation of these two ; 
_ but we are told what must be owr part, in forsaking sin, 
etc., if we are to benefit by it. Thus Christianity, like 
Natural Theology, claims to be a subject which can 
only be partly and yet sufficiently understood. 

Fourthly, it should be noticed that, though indi- 
vidually the Christian doctrines may seem improbable, 
yet, when considered as a whole, as in all fairness they 
ought to be, there is a complete ‘harmony between 
them. Their improbability is not cumulative. On the 
contrary, one often helps to explain the difficulties of 
another. This has been recognised by most writers, 
including many who can scarcely be called theo- 
logians. For instance, the great Napoleon is reported 
to have said, ‘ If once the Divine character of Christ 
is admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision 
and clearness of algebra; so that we are struck with 
admiration at its scientific connection and unity.’! 

In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that we 
are only now considering the credibility of Christianity, 
and not trying to make out that it is a probable 
religion on a priort grounds, which it obviously is not. 
Only its improbability is not so extremely great as to 
make it useless to consider the evidence in its favour. 
This is especially so when we reflect that this improba- 
bility must have seemed as great, if not greater, when 


1 Beauterne, Sentiment de Napoleon ie sur le Christianisme | 
_ hew edition, Paris, 1864, p. 110, 


204 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIII. 


Christianity was first preached than it does now, 
when we are so accustomed to the religion. And 
yet, as a matter of fact, the evidence in its favour did 
outweigh every objection, and finally convince the 
civilised world... What this: evidence is we proceed to 
inquire. 


CIDA P Phe xr Ve 


THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM 
EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 


(A.) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. 

That many critics have decided against the Gospels, but 
this is easily accounted for, as they reject the Super- 
natural altogether. 

(B.) THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY, 


End of second century: Irenzeus, and the Muratorian 
= Canon. This evidence retrospective, and of great value. 
(C.) THE ALMOST UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. 

(1.) Justin Martyr, a.p. 150. He refers to publicly read 

Apostolic Memoirs, which must have been our 
Synoptic Gospels, as the same events are alluded to, 
though the quotations are not accurate ; and prob- 
ably included the Fourth Gospel. 

(2.) Tatian, Justin’s disciple, a.p. 175, wrote the Diates- 

saron or harmony of Four Gospels. 

(3.) Marcian, A.D. 140, wrote a Gospel based on St. Luke’s. 
(D.) THE DispuTtED TESTIMONY. 

(1.) The Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, later than our 

Four, and yet previous to Justin. 

(2.) Papias: mentions first two Gospels by name, and 

probably knew of the others. 

(3.) Aristides : alludes to some Gospel as well known. 

(4.) The Apostolic Fathers : Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, 

Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Twelve, seem to 
contain references to our Gospels. 


HAVING shown in the last chapter that the Christian 
Religion is credible, we have next to consider what 


295 


296 | THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xiv. 


evidence there is in its favour. Now that it: was. 
founded on the alleged teaching and miracles of 
‘Christ, and chiefly on His Resurrection, is admitted 
by everyone. So we must first examine whether we 
have any trustworthy testimony as to these events: 
more especially whether the Four Gospels, which ap- 
pear to contain such testimony, are authentic. By the 
Four Gospels, it need scarcely be remarked, we mean 
those commonly ascribed to SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John ; and by their being authentic, or genuine, we — 
mean that they were in the main, and excluding 
doubtful passages, written or compiled by those persons. 
Whether the events they record are true is of course 
another question, which will be examined later on: at 
present we are dealing with their authenticity only. 
And there is an important objection to be considered 
at starting. . 

(A.) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. 

This is that the authenticity of the Four Gospels, or 
indeed of any Books of the Bible, can only be decided 
by sfeczalists ; that is to say, by men who have made 
a special study of the subject, and are well acquainted 
with the languages in which the Books were written. 
And that therefore, as a large number of these critics 
—extremely able men—have decided against their 
authenticity, this ought to settle the question. And if 
it could only be replied that equally able men have 
decided the other way, the ordinary reader might well 
think that for him to try and examine the evidence, 
and judge between them, was mere waste of time. 

But it so happens that there is a satisfactory answer 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY.  : 207 


to this objection. It is that the chief critics, who 
deny the authenticity of the Four Gospels (and most 
of the other Books of the Bible) are all Rationalists, 
that is to say, men who reject the supernatural alto- 
gether. A miracle is to them incredible. Trustworthy 
testimony to it is of course equally so, and hence those 
books of the Bible which, if authentic, would contain 
such testimony, must of necessity be not authentic. 
This principle has been admitted, either directly or 
indirectly, by all the leading writers of this school, 
such as Baur and Strauss in Germany, Renan in France, 
and the author of ‘ Supernatural Religion ’ in England, 
some of whom state it with surprising candour. 

Thus Baur says, ‘ The main argument for the later 
date of our Gospels is, after all, this—that they, one by 
one, and still more collectively, exhibit so much out of 
the life of Jesus in a way which is impossible,’ #.e., 
miraculous, as the context clearly shows.! Here it will 
be noticed the foregone conclusion that miracles are 
impossible is made the chief argument for saying the 
Gospels which record them are not authentic. 

Next as to Strauss. He expresses his agreement 
with critics who adopt ‘ the fundamental conviction 
that everything that happens, or ever happened, 


happened naturally ; that even the most distinguished 


of men was still man ; and that consequently the super- 


natural colouring in the accounts of early Christianity 


must be adventitious and unreal.’ Again he says, ‘ In 
the person and acts of Jesus no supernaturalism shall 
be suffered to remain.’ And quite consistently he 
*-Critical Enquiry as to the Gospels, Tiibingen, 1847, p. 530. 


298 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. cap. x1v. 


declares that none of the Gospels can be truly and 
fully historical, ‘for the simple reason that they 
contain supernaturalism.’! 

Passing on to Renan, he is equally precise, for though 
he denies that a miracle is impossible, he certainly 
considers it incredible. His words are, ‘ Till we have 
new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this principle 
of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation 
cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies 
credulity or imposture, that the duty of the historian 
is to interpret it, and to seek what portion of truth 
and what portion of error it may contain. Such are 
the rules which have been followed in the composition 
of this Life.’ Again he says, speaking of the Gospels 
being in part legendary, ‘ That is evident, since they 
are full of miracles and the supernatural.’? 

So, again, the author of ‘Supernatural Religion ’ 
Says, when speaking of miracles, ‘ There are th 
strongest reasons for affirming that such phenomena 
are antecedently incredible.’ And again, ‘ Both the 
supernatural religion, therefore, and its supernatural 
evidence labour under the fatal disability of being ante- 
cedently incredible.’ And again, speaking of Christ’s 
resurrection, ‘ The belief that a dead man rose from 
the dead and appeared to several persons alive, is at 
once disposed of upon abstract grounds. The alleged 
occurrence is contrary to universal experience.” 


1 Strauss, New Life of Jesus. Authorised translation. London, 
1865, pp. x, xii, 34. 

2 Renan’s Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour. New York, 1864, 
PP- 17, 44, 45. 

* Supernatural Religion, 2nd edit., 1874-77, pp. 78, 94; vol. iii., 
D. S22. 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 299 


These quotations, which are mere samples of numbers 
that might be given, show clearly that the rejection of 
the supernatural is the basis from which these writers 
start. But to assume that miracles are incredible, and 
that therefore authentic evidence to them is equally 
so, 1s to give up the critical and historical argument 
altogether. We do not of course mean that critica] 
and historical objections are not relied on at all. They 
are to some extent; but they are more like excuses 
than reasons, the real reason for disputing the books 
being in every case an antecedent objection to the 
miraculous events recorded. And then, starting with 
this, they search for any slight evidence that can be 
found, either critical or historical, for proving it. Such 
a method of arguing has been happily described as a 
conclusion in search of its prenvises ; and it is needless 
to add that, in a case of this sort, premises of some 
kind are generally found. 

Under these circumstances we need not discuss 
further the objection that many specialists have decided 
against the authenticity of the Gospels. Fortunately 
their opponents, who maintain the genuineness of 
these books, can afford to lay aside all arguments 
founded on their own views as to the supernatural, 
and rely only on critical evidence. 

We have now to examine what this evidence is ; 
first considering the external testimony borne by early 
Christian writers to the Four Gospels, and reserving 
the internal evidence from the Books themselves for 
the next chapter. It may be mentioned at starting 
that we have no complete manuscripts of the Gospels 


> 


3007 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. cua. xrv. 


earlier than the beginning of the fourth century ; but 
there is nothing surprising in this, as for the first two 
centuries books were generally written on papyrus, an 
extremely fragile material. And therefore, with the 
exception of some fragments preserved in Egypt, all 
documents of this period, whether Christian or 
Classical, have entirely perished. A much more durable 
material, vellum, began to supplant papyrus in the 
third century, but did not come into common use till 
the fourth. Moreover, during the persecutions, which 
occurred at intervals up to the fourth century, all 
Christian writings were specially sought for, and de- 
stroyed ; indeed, their mere possession involved such 
great danger that many preferred not to have them. 
And therefore the absence of earlier manuscripts 
though very unfortunate, is not perhaps unnatural ; 
and it is anyhow no worse than in the case of classical 
authors. I have seen it stated, for instance, that there 
are no manuscripts of either Cicero, Cesar, or Tacitus 
within 800 years of their time. | 

It of course raises a doubt as to whether we have the 
original ¢ext of our Gospels. But the numerous refer- 
ences in early Christian writers show that this cannot 
affect more than a few verses; so all it can do is to 
make us careful not to base too much on a single 
passage. And certainly the defenders of Christianity 
have nothing to fear from such a restriction, as the 
arguments in its favour never depend on single passages, 
though the difficulties connected with it often do. 

(B.) THe UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. 

Fortunately we need not begin later than the end of 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. qOx 


the second century, since it is admitted by everyone 
that our Four Gospels were then well known through- 
out the Church. They were continually quoted by 
Christian writers; they were universally ascribed to 
the authors we now ascribe them to; and they were 
always considered to be in some sense divinely inspired. 

As this is undisputed, we need not discuss the evi- 
dence in detail; but one writer deserves to be men- 
tioned, because his testimony is retrospective, and 
proves far more than the mere fact that the Gospels 
were well known in his time. This is Jveneus of 
Lyons, whose works date from about A.D. 185; and he 
not only quotes the Gospels frequently (about 500 times 
altogether, of which 100 are from the Fourth Gospel), 
_ but assigns them to the same Evangelists as we do now. 
Moreover he shows there were only four of acknow- 
ledged authority, since the fanciful analogies he gives 
for this, likening the four Gospels to the four rivers in 
Paradise, and the four quarters of the globe, render it 
certain that the fact of there being four, neither more 
nor less, must have been undisputed in his day. And 
he distinctly implies that this had been so from the 
beginning. And as he was not a mere private indi- 
vidual, but an important bishop, who had travelled 
much, his testimony has an official character, and may 
be said to represent that of the Church. . 

And what makes it still more valuable is that he 
had such excellent means of knowing the truth. 
_He was born in Asia Minor (probably about A.D. 130) 
and brought up under Polycarp; and he himself 
tells us in after life how well he remembered his 


302 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIV. 


teacher. ‘I can even describe the place where the 
blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse—his going 
out, too, and his coming in—his general mode of life 
and personal appearance, together with the discourses 
which he delivered to the people ; also how he would 
speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with 
the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how 
he would call their words to remembrance. Whatso- 
ever things he had heard from them respecting the 
Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teach- 
ing, Polycarp having thus received (information) from 
the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, would recount - 
them all in harmony with the Scriptures.’ 

The importance of this passage can scarcely be ex- 
aggerated ; for in the mouth of Ireneus, the Scriptures, 
which contain an account of Christ’s miracles and teach- 
ing, can only mean the Four Gospels ; and thus we 
have in Polycarp a very early witness to these. And it 
has also a special bearing on the authorship of the 
Fourth Gospel. For is it conceivable that Irenzus, 
who quotes it so often, would have ascribed it to St. ? 
John unless it had been mentioned to him as such by 
Polycarp ? Or is it conceivable that Polycarp, who 
personally knew St. John, could have been deceived — 
by a forgery? The difficulties of either alternative, 
when carefully considered, will be seen to be enor- 
mous ; and yet there is no other, unless we admit that 
St! Tohn was the author. 

It should also be noticed that Irenzus, when dis- 


1 Treneus, Fragment of Epistle to Florinus. The translations 
here and elsewhere are from the Ante- Nicene Christian Library, 


> —> ~ _ ‘ » 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 303 


cussing two alternative readings of Rev. 13. 18, sup- 
ports one of them by saying that it is found zu all the 
most approved and anctent copies ; and was also main- 
tained by men who saw John face to face. He had 
thus some idea as to the value of evidence : and it is 
most unlikely that he should have written as he did 
_ about the Four Gospels, unless he had seen equally 
approved and ancient copies of them. 

Before passing on, we must just glance at the Mura- 
toritan Canon. This is the earliest known list of New 
Testament books, and appears to have been written 
about A.D. 175. The first part is lost; the portion 
that remains commences in the middle of a sentence 
evidently referring to St. Mark’s Gospel. It then goes 
on to “ The third Book of the Gospel, that of Luke.’ 
It then mentions ‘ The Fourth Gospel, that of John,’ 
then the Acts of the Apostles by Luke, and then the 
remaining books of our present New Testament, except 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, giving a few notes about 
each. It also mentions various apocryphal works, but 
distinguishes between these and the canonical ones, 
saying that the latter were inspired. From all this it 
is clear that towards the close of the second century, 
our Four Gospels held much the same position among 
Christians as they do at present. And this alone raises 
a strong presumption in favour of their authenticity. 

(C.) THE ALMOST UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. 

We next come to the testimony of some earlier 
writers, which was formerly much disputed, but is 
now practically admitted by all critics. 


1 Tren, 5. 30. 


304 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIV. 


.(1.) Justin Martyr. 

By far the most important of these is Justin Martyr ; 
and this importance is due to the fact that three of 
his writings, two Apologies and a Dialogue, have come 
down to us, which are admittedly genuine, and long 
enough to argue from with some confidence. And that 
he refers to our Gospels is now almost undisputed. His 
works date from about A.D. 145-150, the first Apology 
being addressed to the Emperor Antoninus (138-161). 
Moreover, he was no ordinary convert, but a philo-. 
sopher, and says himself that prior to embracing Chris- 
tianity he had studied various philosophical systems 
and found them unsatisfactory ; so we may be sure 
that he did not accept Christianity without making 
similar inquiries as to the facts on which it rested.} 
And as his father and grandfather were natives of 
Palestine, where he was born (probably about A.D. 114), 
he must have had good means of finding out the truth. 

Now Justin does not allude to any of the Evangelists 
by name, but he frequently quotes from the ‘ Memoirs 
of the Apostles, which he says were sometimes called 
Gospels, and were publicly read and expounded in the 
churches, together with the Old Testament Prophets. 
And he gives no hint that this was a local or recent 
practice, but implies that it was the universal and well- 
established custom. These Memoirs, he tells us,? were 
written by the Apostles and their followers, which exactly 
describes our present Gospels, two of which are ascribed 
to Apostles (Matthew and John), and the other two to 
their immediate followers (Mark and Luke). And con- 

1 Dial., 2. 2 Apol. 1. 66; Dial., 100. 3 Dial., 103. 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY, 305 


sidering that Justin was writing for unbelievers, not 
Christians, there is nothing strange in his not men- 
tioning the names of the individual writers. In the 
same way Tertullian never once names the Evangelists 
in his Apology, which is addressed to heathens, 
though he often does so in his writings addressed to 
Christians. 

Now Justin gives about sixty quotations from these 
Memoirs, and they describe precisely those events in 
the life of Christ recorded in our first three, commonly 
called the Synoptic, Gospels, and with scarcely any 
addition. Indeed, out of all Justin’s references to 
the events of Christ’s life, whether quotations or not, 
of which there are over two hundred, only four refer 
to events not now found in our Gospels. This is very 
remarkable, and seems to show that even at this early 
time our Gospels were the only recognised sources of 
information. 

For example, we may take the events of Christ’s 
birth and childhood. As is well known, the apocryphal 
Gospels were very diffuse on this subject ; but the 
events mentioned by Justin have been carefully col- 
lected, and are found to consist merely of these: that 
Christ was descended from Abraham, through Jacob, 
Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David ;! that the Angel 
Gabriel announced His birth to the Virgin Mary ; that 
this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah: that 
Joseph was forbidden in a vision to put away his 
espoused wife ; that Christ’s birth at Bethlehem had 

+ Justin names these persons as the ancestors of the Virgin Mary, 
but she, as well as Joseph, may have been descended from David, 

20 


300 THE. TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY: ~ GHAP. xIy. 


been foretold by Micah ; that His parents went thither 
from Nazareth, where they dwelt, in consequence of 
the enrolment of Quirinius; that as they could not 
find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave 
close by, where Christ was born, and laid in a manger ; 
that while there wise men from Arabia, guided by a 
star, worshipped Him and offered Him gold, frankin- 
cense, and myrrh, and by revelation were commanded 
not to return to Herod, to whom they had first come ; 
that He was called Jesus, as the Saviour of His people § 
that by the command of God His parents fled with 
Him to Egypt for fear of Herod, and remained there 
till Archelaus succeeded him; and that Herod, being 
deceived by the wise men, slew the infants at Beth- 
lehem, so that the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled, 
as to Rachel weeping for her children. 

_ With the exception of the two words in italics, 
there is no addition to our present Gospels here ; and 
any ordinary reader would at once conclude that 
Justin was quoting from them. There is, however, this 
difficulty. Scarcely any of the quotations are verbally 
accurate, and it has been urged in consequence that 
Justin must have been quoting from some Lost Gospel. 
But this theory is hardly tenable. For Justin some- 
times quotes the same passage differently, clearly 
showing that he was relying on his memory ; and had 
not looked up the reference, which in those days of 
manuscripts, without concordances, must have been a 
tedious process. Also when quoting the Old Testa- 
ment, he is almost equally inaccurate ; though none 
will deny that he both knew it, and intended to quote 


THE GOSPELS - EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 307 


it. While later Christian writers, such as Irenzeus, who 
avowedly quoted from our Gospels, are also inaccurate 
in small details. And it must be remembered that 
until printing was introduced, no two copies of a book 
were exactly alike, ‘as even the most careful scribes 
would make a few mistakes ;: and this also may explain 
some of the verbal differences. 

We need not therefore assume a Lost Gospel to 
account for Justin’s quotations ; though, if we do, 
it does not materially affect the argument, since of 
necessity this Lost Gospel must have contained a 
precisely similar account of Christ’s life to that in 
our Synoptic ones. And this is, after all, the impor- 
tant point—not when or by whom were the Gospels 
written, but whether the facts they record are true. 
And this must depend on whether the immediate fol- 
lowers of Christ, who had ample means of knowing, 
believed them to be true. And an earlier Lost Gospel, 
if it recorded the same facts, would be as valuable 
evidence of this as our present ones. But there is 
practically no doubt that Justin was quoting from 
these Gospels. 

But with regard to the Fourth Gospel, the case is 
different, since there are far fewer apparent references 
to it in Justin. He seems, however, to have known it, 
since its phraseology, and to some extent its doctrines, 
are distinct from the other three, and yet they are repro- 
duced by Justin. Thus his phraseology is so similar in 
some cases as to amount to a quotation. For instance: 
‘Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it 

20—2 


308 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XIV. 


is impossible for those who have once been born to 
enter into their mother’s womb is manifest to all.’ 
And ‘ He [John the Baptist] cried to them, I am not 
the Christ, but the voice of one crying ; for He that 
is stronger than I shall come, Whose shoes I am not 
worthy to bear.’* 

Again, the doctrines taught by Justin regarding the 
pre-existence and divinity of Christ, the sacrament of 
Baptism, and some others, are precisely such as are 
found in the Fourth Gospel and nowhere else. For 
example,2 ‘ The first power after God the Father and 


Lord of all is the Word, Who is also the Son ; and of , 


Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh 
and became man.’ And again, ‘ The Word of wisdom, 
Who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all 
things.’ It has been suggested that Justin derived 
these doctrines from the Greek Jew Philo, born about 
B.C. 20, in whose writings the. Divine Word or Logos is 
often alluded to. And some have even thought that 
the Fourth Gospel itself may have been indebted to 
Philo. But its great doctrine, that of the Incarnation, 
or that the Word became flesh, which is reproduced by 
Justin, is never hinted at by Philo, or any other philo- 
sopher, and this separates the two systems entirely. 
The Logos of Philo is a kind of Intermediate Being, 
who is neither God nor man; while the Logos of 
Christianity is both. Moreover, as Justin in his Dia- 
logue was arguing with a Jew, he would probably have 
mentioned Philo if quoting from him. 


1 Apol. 1. 61; Dial., 88; John 3. 3-5; 1. 20-27. 
2 Apol. 1. 32; Dial., 61. 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 309 


(2.) Tatian. 

To the above evidence must be added that of Justin’s 
disciple, Tatian, and this seems conclusive. He wrote 
a book about A.D. 175, recently discovered, called the 
Diatessaron, which, as its name implies, was a kind of 
harmony of Four Gospels. It was based chiefly on 
St. Matthew’s, the events peculiar to the others being 
introduced in various places. And its special value 
in our present inquiry is that it commences with the 
sentence, In the beginning was the Word, etc., which is 
the opening clause of the Fourth Gospel. And this 
shows that that Gospel must ‘not only have been in 
circulation, but of acknowledged authority, in Justin’s 
time, and renders it almost certain that he derived these 
quotations and doctrines from it, and not from some 
purely imaginary source. 

We can now sum up the evidence of Justin. He 
shows that in the middle of the second century—and 
his memory was probably good for thirty years 
earlier—certain Apostolic Memoirs or Gospels were 
publicly read in the churches, and were evidently 
considered of great authority. And everything points 
to these being the same Gospels which were known and 
quoted throughout the Church towards the close of 
the century. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable that in 
such a short time a new set of Gospels could have 
been introduced, and the older ones immediately for- 
gotten, so that Irenzus, for instance, could have 
written as he did about there being only four. 

(3.) Marcion. 

Another most important witness is Marcion. He 


310 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIV. 


wrote, not later than A.D. 140, a kind of Gospel, so 
similar to St. Luke’s that one was evidently based on 
the other. And that St. Luke’s is the earlier is now 
admitted by critics of all schools, including the author 
of ‘Supernatural Religion’ in the third and subse- 
quent editions of his book ; though he had before tried 
to prove the opposite. And therefore as St. Matthew 
and St. Mark are generally allowed to be earlier than 
St. Luke, this shows that all our Synoptic Gospels were 
in circulation before A.D. 140; which makes it still 
more certain that Justin, who wrote some years later, 
got his quotations from these Gospels. And if so, 
their want of verbal accuracy, so far from being an 
adverse argument, is just the opposite, for it shows that 


similar discrepancies in other writers do not disprove 


that they were quoting from our Gospels. 

(D.) THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY. 

We pass on now to the testimony of stiil earlier 
writers, all of which is more or less disputed by some 
critics. | 

(1.) The Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter. 

And first as to the Gospel of St. Peter. The existence 
of this work (like that of Tatian) has long been known 
through references to it in early writers, but only 
recently (1887) has a portion of the work itself been 
discovered. This is about as long as a single chapter 
in our Gospels, and contains a brief narrative of events 
from the washing of Pilate’s hands to the return of the 
disciples to Galilee after the Resurrection. The work 
was evidently known to Justin, so it cannot be later 
than A.D. 140. It seems to be rather a careless com- 


THE GOSPELS :: EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. S11 


pilation from our four Gospels, as it mentions very 
few facts that are not recorded there, though it often 
distorts them, and puts them in a different order. 

Its special value lies in its witness to the Fourth 
Gospel, since it mentions several points which are 
peculiar to that Gospel ; such as the legs of the male- 
factors being broken, though not apparently those of 
Christ Himself, the place where He was buried being 
called a garden, and the Crucifixion taking place before 
‘ the first day of Unleavened Bread,’ in which respect 
it seems to differ from the Synoptics. And hence it 
follows that the Fourth Gospel, like the other three, 
must have been well known, and of recognised authority 
at that time. 

(2.) Paptas. 

Next as to Papias. He was bishop of Hierapolis in 
Asia Minor early in the second century, and onlya 
few fragments of his writings have been preserved by | 
Ireneeus and Eusebius. We learn from the former 
that he was a disciple of St. John and a companion of 
Polycarp ; and considering that Irenzus was himself 
Polycarp’s pupil, there is no reason to doubt this.! But 
these fragments have been the cause of great contro- 
versy. Papias tells us himself what were his sources of 
information : ‘ If, then, anyone who had attended on 
the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—- 
what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, 
or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, 
or by any other of the Lord’s disciples : which things 
Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of ‘the 

1 Trenzus, Bk. 5. 33. 


312 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIV. 


Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got 
from books was not so profitable to me as what came 
from the living and abiding voice.’ | 

He had thus the best possible means of knowing, and 
his testimony to the first two Gospels is explicit. He 
says, ‘ Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew 
language, and each one interpreted them as best he 
could.’ And ‘ Mark, having become the interpreter of 
Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remem- 
bered. It was not, however, in exact order that he 
related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither 
heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But after- 
wards, as I said, he accompanied Peter.’! 

Papias, it will be noticed, does not state whether 
St. Mark wrote during St. Peter’s lifetime or after- 
wards ; and early authorities are divided on the subject ; 


Ireneus being generally quoted as saying that it was 


after St. Peter’s death, while Clement of Alexandria, 
who wrote at the close of the second century, says it 
was during his lifetime. This latter is the more prob- 
able (see Chapter XVI.), especially as Ireneeus seems 
to have been misunderstood in the matter.® 7 

But Eusebius gives no quotations from Papias con- 
cerning the last two Gospels; and from this we may 
perhaps infer that he knew nothing as to the compo- 
sition of these Gospels, similar to what he did about 
the first two. But to conclude, as some critics do, that 
Papias had never heard of the books in question, is 

1 Eusebius, Hist., iti. 39; 1 Pet. 5. 13. 


2 Ireneus, Bk. 3. 1; Eusebius, Hist., i. 15 , vi. 14. 
3 Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905, 


i i eg 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 5a 


quite unjustified. It is based on a misunderstanding 
of a passage in Eusebius.t He does not here say that 
he will mention every reference in earlier writers to the 
New Testament scriptures, but only their allusion to 
the disputed books of his time (A.D. 315), and what they 
said about the canonical ones. And judging by those 
writers whose works are still extant, this is exactly 
what he has done. For instance, he quotes what 
Irenzus says about the Gospels and the Revelation, 
and also that he quoted r John, zr Peter, and the 
Shepherd of Hermas, which latter he accepted as 
canonical; but not a word is said about his having 
used the Acts and St. Paul’s Epistles. Yet as a matter 
of fact he does so frequently. Plainly Eusebius did 
not mention this because he took it for granted that 
every Christian acknowledged these writings. And 
therefore it is quite possible for Papias to have used, 
or even quoted, the third and fourth Gospels, without 
Eusebius mentioning it. 

Whether he actually did so cannot of course be 
decided, unless his works should be rediscovered ; but 
there are slight indications that he knew them. | For 
instance, the order in which he names the Apostles 
—Andrew, Peter, and Philip—is not that of their im- 
portance, nor are they ever mentioned in that order in 
the Synoptics, but it is the order in which their calling 
is described in the fourth Gospel. 

(3.) Aristides. | 

Next as to Aristides. He was a philosopher at 
Athens, and addressed an Apology to the Roman 


! Eusebius, Hist., iii. 3. 


314 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIV. 


Emperor, Hadrian, about A.D. 125, which was re- 
discovered in 1889. He has no quotation from the 
Gospels, but what is perhaps equally important, he 
gives a summary of Christian doctrine, including the 
Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-Birth, Resurrection and 
Ascension of Christ ; and says that it is taught in the 
Gospel, where men can read it for themselves ; which 
clearly shows that some well-known biography of 
Christ containing this teaching was then in existence. 

(4.) The Apostolic Fathers. 

The last group of writers to be examined are those 
who lived soon after the Apostles. The chief of these 
are Polycarb of Smyrna, the disciple of St. John, 
martyred in A.D. 155, when he had been a Christian 
86 years ; Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in his old 
age, about A.D. 110; Clement of Rome, probably the 
companion of St. Paul, and the writers of the so-called 
Epistle of Barnabas, and Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 
Their dates are not known for certain, but it is now 
generally admitted by Rationalists as well as Christians 
that they all wrote before A.D. 120. Thus the Encyclo- 
pedia Brblica (article Gospels) dates their works, 
Polycarp 110; Ignatius (7 Epistles) before 110; 
Clement 95 ; Barnabas, probably in first century ; 
Teaching 80-110. 

Now none of these writers mention the Gospels by 
name ; but this is no argument to show that they were 
not quoting them, because the same writers, when 
admittedly quoting St. Paul’s Epistles, also do so at 
times without reference or acknowledgment. And 

1 Phil. 4: 3. 


1s 


THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 315 


later Christian writers do precisely the same; the 
Gospels are often not quoted by name, but their 
language and phraseology are continually employed, 
much as they are by clergymen when preaching at the 
present day. If, then, we find in these writers pas- 
sages similar to those in our Gospels, the inference is 
that they are quoting from them; and, as a matter 
of fact, we do find such passages, though they are 
not numerous. A single example may be given from 
each. | 

‘But being mindful of what the Lord said in His 
teaching : Judge not, that ye be not judged ; forgive, 
and it shall be forgiven unto you ; be merciful, that 
ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, 
it shall be measured to you again; and once more, 
Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted 
for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of 
God.’! 

‘For I know that after His Resurrection also, He 
was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so 
now. When, for instance, He came to those who were 
with Peter, He said to them, “ Lay hold, handle Me, 
and see that I am not an incorporeal Spirit. © 23 

“Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
how He said, Woe to that man! It were better for 
him that he had never been born, than that he should 
cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, 
it were better for him that a millstone should be hung 
about (his neck), and he should be sunk in the depths 


1 Polycarp, ch. ii.; Luke 6. 36-38 ; Matt. 5..3,/10. 
2 Ignatius to Smyrnzans, ch. iii. ; Luke 24. 39. 


- 


316 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIV. 


of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block 
before one of my little ones.’! 


‘Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, | 


Many are called, but few are chosen.’ 

‘Having said beforehand all these things, baptize 
ye in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost in living water.’ 

The passage from Barnabas deserves special men- 
tion, since here we have words which only occur in 
our Gospels, introduced with the phrase as tt ts written, 
which is only used of Scripture quotations. And this 
shows conclusively that at the time of the writer some 
Gospel containing these words must have been well 
known, and considered of high authority. And the 
attempts to explain away this quotation as from the 
second Book of Esdras,4 where the words are, ‘ There 
be many created, but few shall be saved ;’ or as an 
error on the part of the writer, who fancied they came 
somewhere in the Old Testament, are quite inadmis- 
sible. And the Teaching of the Twelve, it may.be 
added, also refers more than once to what is com- 
manded tn the Gospel, mentioning among other matters 
the Lord’s Prayer.® 

But it may be said, may not all these quotations be 
from some Lost Gospel ? Of course they may. It is 
always possible to refer quotations not to the only book 
in which we know they do occur, but to some imaginary 
book in which they might occur. There is, however, 


1 Clement, ch. xlvi. ; Luke 17. 1, 2. 

2 Barnabas, ch. iv. ; Matt. 22. 14. 

3 Teaching, ch. vii. ; Matt. 28. 19. 

4 2 Esdr. 8. 3. 5 Teaching, ch. viii., xi., xv. 


- THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. Sie 


no need to do so in this case, as all the evidence points 
the other way. Though, as said before, even if we do 
it does not materially affect the argument ; for though 
it weakens the evidence for our Gospels, it rather 
increases that for the facts which they record. 

Suppose, for instance, the passage in Ignatius was 
not taken from St. Luke’s, but from some Lost Gospel. 
It could not then be cited to show that St. Luke’s 
Gospel was known to Ignatius, but it would afford 
additional evidence that Christ really did rise from 
the dead, that when He appeared to His Apostles, 
they at first thought it was a spirit ; and that He took 
the obvious means of convincing them, by asking 
them to handle His Body. All this would then be 
vouched for not only by St. Luke’s Gospel, but also 
by some other early Christian writing, which as Ignatius 
quotes it in A.D. 110 must certainly have been written 
within the first century, and must certainly have been 
considered by him as conclusive evidence; for he is 
careful to distinguish between what he thus knows 
(that Christ had a Body after His Resurrection) and 
what he merely believes (that He has one now). And 
the same applies in other cases. 

And if it be further urged that these writers would 
have referred more frequently to the Gospels, if they 
really knew them, we must remember that their writings 
are generally short, and that while a single quotation 
proves the prior existence of the document quoted, 
ten pages without a quotation do not disprove it. 
_ Moreover we can test this argument by seeing how soon 
important classical works are quoted ; and the result 


Sree? THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cmap. xtv. 


is surprising, since (as far as we know) those of Hero- 
dotus are only quoted once, and those of Thucydides 
not at all, within a hundred years of their appear- 
ance. . 
Lastly, it must be noticed that when these writers 
refer to the sayings of Christ or the events of His life, 
they always do so without the slightest hesitation, as if 
it were acknowledged truth. And these events include 
all the more important facts about Christ, such as His 
Pre- existence and Divinity, His Incarnation and 
Virgin-Birth, His Epiphany and Baptism, His Cruci- 
fixion and Resurrection, His Ascension and Future 
Coming in Judgment. Moreover, as we have seen, 
their allusions are often introduced with the words 
remember or be mindful, clearly showing that they 
expected their readers to know them already. Hence 
some books must have then existed which were well 
known, containing a life of Christ ; and the improba- 
bility of these having perished, and a fresh set of Gospels 
having been published in a few years, is very great. 
While the later the date we assign to our Gospels, the 
less likely is it for them to have been at once accepted 
by the whole Church. And this is confirmed by the 
fact that none of the apocryphal Gospels, which were 
later inventions, could ever obtain universal acceptance. 
We may now sum up the external testemony to the 
Four Gospels. It shows that at the beginning of the | 
second century they were well known to Christian 
writers, and this alone would necessitate their com- 
position in the first century, or at all events before 


' Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures, 1860,-p. 379. 


aoe 


THE GOSPELS: EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 319 


A.D. I10. And thanks to recent discoveries, this is 


now admitted by many leading rationalists, such as 
Harnack. It may indeed be considered as one of the 
definite results of recent controversies. But if we 
admit this, the uniform tradition of the Church, and 
the entire absence of any counter-testimony, make it 
probable that they were actually written by the 
Evangelists to whom they have been universally 
ascribed. We have thus very strong external testi- 
mony in favour of the authenticity of the Four Gospels. 


CHAPTER XV. 


THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM INTERNAL 
EVIDENCE. 


(4.) THEIR GENERAL ACCURACY. 
This is shown by secular history, where they can be tested. 


(B.) THe THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
(1.) Their sources ; the triple tradition ; other early docu- 
ments. 
(2.) Their apparent truthfulness ; numerous indications of 
this. 
(3.) Their probable date ; before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, say, A.D. 50-70. 


(C.) THE FourTH GOSPEL. 


(1.) Its authorship. The writer appears to have been a 
Jew, living in the first century, and an eye-witness 
of what he describes ; hence probably St. John. 

(2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. It was meant 
to supplement them ; while the alleged difference in 
Christ’s character favours its authenticity. 

(3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. This 
admitted to be by St. John, and there are no valid 
reasons for the Gospel being by a different author. 


HAvinG decided in the last chapter that the Four 

Gospels ‘are probably authentic from external testt- 

mony, we pass on now to the internal evidence, which, 

it will be seen, strongly supports this conclusion. For 

convenience we will first consider their general accuracy 
320 


“ 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 321 


‘and then examine the Three Synoptic Gospels and the 

Fourth Gospel separately ; as they are of a somewhat 
different character. 

(A.) THEIR GENERAL ACCURACY. 

It is now admitted by everyone that the writers 
show a thorough acquaintance with Palestine both as 
to its geography, history, and people, especially the 
political and social state of the country in the half- 
century preceding the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). 
The Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about 
A.D. 95, gives us a vivid description of this; and 
everything we read in the Gospels is in entire agree- 
ment with it. And this is the'more important because 
the country was then in a very anomalous condition. 
_ It was not like an ordinary Roman province, but had 
been allowed to retain a certain amount of indepen- 
dence. And yet this double system of government, 
half Roman, half Jewish, which only existed up to the 
fall of Jerusalem, is implied all through the Gospels. 
And this alone shows that they must have been written 
by men familiar with Palestine, and well acquainted 
with the time in question. 

With regard to the actual events described, we have, 
as a rule, no other account, but where we have, their 
accuracy is fully confirmed. Take, for instance, the 
puzzling changes in the Government of Palestine. 
Within fifty years this was a single kingdom under 
Herod the Great (up to B.c. 4) ; a set of principalities 
under various tetrarchs, one of whom, Archelaus, had 
the title of King (up to a.p. 6), a country consisting 
partly of such principalities, and partly a Roman pro- 

2X 


322 ‘THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV. 


vince under procurators like Pilate (up to A.D. 41) ; 
a kingdom united again under Herod Agrippa I. (up 
to A.D. 44) ; and the whole finally reduced to a Roman 
province (after A.D. 44). And yet everyone of these 
changes, though mentioned quite incidentally, is cor- 
rectly referred to in the Gospels or Acts." 

More important than these, however, are several 
slight points of agreement, which none but a con- 
temporary was likely to have known. Among such 
may be mentioned the importance assigned by the 
Pharisees to their traditions; the mention of the 
didrachma, or tribute-money voluntarily paid for the — 
support of the Temple, which St. Matthew does not 
think to need explanation, though Josephus does ; 
the strange fact that the term high priest was applied 
to two persons at the same time, which was incorrect 
according to Jewish law; the publicans or tax-col- 
lectors for the Romans being often Jews ; the 2l-feeling 
of the Samaritans towards the Jews ; and the position 
Pilate occupied as a Roman governor to the Jewish 
courts.” } 

In all these cases the accuracy of the narrative is 
directly confirmed by Josephus or other sources, 
though it is obvious that many of them are not likely 
to have been known to a late writer ; especially after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, which completely changed 
everything in Palestine. Of course combined with ~ 
all this accuracy, there are a few instances of alleged 


1 Matt. 2-1, 22; Luke 3.1; Acts 12. 1; 23. 24; Josephus, Wars, 
. 20, 33; it. 6; Antiq., xviii. 1 ; Wars, xix. 5, 9. 

2 Matt.15. 3; 17..24; Luke 8.2575: 27; 9. 53;3.23.. 74 tcomeme 
osephus, Antiq., xiii. 10 ; xviii. 9 ; Wars, ii. 12, 14 ; Antiq., xx. 6, 9. 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 323 


tmaccuracy. Three are commonly urged. The first 
two are mere slips, perhaps due to a copyist, in calling 
Zachariah the son of Barachiah ; and in referring a 
prophecy to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah.! The 
other is the enrolment under Quirinius. According 
to St. Luke? this occurred while Herod was king, and 
therefore not later than what we now call B.c. 4, 
when Herod died : whereas, according to Josephus and 
other authorities, Quirinius was Governor of Syria some 
years after Herod’s death, and carried out his taxing 
in A.D. 6. 

This, used to be thought one of the most glaring 
blunders in the Bible, but modern discoveries have 
shown that it is probably correct. To begin with, an 
inscription was found at Tivoli in 1764 which shows 
that Quirinius was fwice Governor of Syria, the former 
time being probably during the reign of Herod, so 
there is very likely an end of that difficulty, though 
it must be admitted the dates do not seem satisfactory. 
Next it will be noticed that St. Luke expressly says 
that this was the first enrolment (R.V.), implying that 
he knew of others; and recent discoveries in Egypt 
(1896-98) have confirmed this in a remarkable manner. 
For they have shown that it was the custom of the 
Romans to have a periodical enrolment of that country 
(and therefore presumably of the adjacent country of 
Syria) every fourteen years. The actual census papers 
have been found for a.p. 20, 48, 62, 76, etc., and it is 


feWiatt. 23. 36° B79 65 Chron. 24. 20; Zech. 1. 1; 11. 12. 
Peiuke. 2,2. See Ramsay, ‘Was Christ born at Bethlehem ?’ 


1899. 
2I-—2 


324 THE: FRUEH SOF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV. 


extremely probable, though it cannot be proved for 
certain, that the system started in B.c. 9-8. 

It is also probable that the first enrolment may 
have been delayed a few years in Palestine, which 
was partly independent, and that to make it as little 
unpopular as possible, Herod had it carried out in the 
Jewish manner, genealogically, each family going to 
its own city as described by St. Luke. Perhaps, how- 
ever, this was the usual custom, as a rescript has beens 
recently discovered in Egypt, dated in the 7th year 
of Trajan (A.D. 104), ordering all persons to return to 
their own districts in view of the approaching census.’ 
The next census in A.D. 6 was not apparently carried 
out in this way, and it led to a rebellion, and therefore 
it alone was thought worthy of notice by Josephus. 
St. Luke, it may be added, seems to have known of this 
second census ;2 but he also knew, what his critics did 
not, that it was only one of a series, and that the first 
of the series took place at an earlier date. 

Curiously enough, there used to be a very similar 
error, charged against St. Luke, in regard to Lysanias ; 
who he says was tetrarch of Abilene (near Damascus) 
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, about A.D. 27.° And 
yet the only ruler of this name known to history in 
those parts was killed in B.c. 34. But an inscription 
discovered at Baalbec shows that there was a second 
Lysanias, hitherto unknown, who is now generally 
admitted to be the one referred to by St. Luke.4 On 

1 Expository Times, Oct., 1907. 

2 Acts 5. 37. 3 Luke 3. I. 


4 Boeckh’s Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 4523: Edersheim’s ‘Life and Times 
of Jesus the Messiah,’ 1901, vol. i., p. 261. 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 325 | 


the whole then, our Four Gospels, wherever we have 
any means of testing them by secular history, appear 
to be substantially accurate. 

(B.) THe THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 

We pass on now to examine the Gospels in detail, 
and will commence with the three Synoptic Gospels ; 
first considering their sources, then their apparent truth- 
fulness, and lastly their probable date. 

(1.) Their sources. 

Now the three Gospels have, as is well known, a 
number of identical passages; and as these are far 
too many to be ascribed to oral tradition, they must 
be due to copying in some form, either two Evangelists 
copying the third, or all three some earlier document. 
The portion they have in common is often called the 
I'niple Tradition ; but this is a singularly unfortunate 
name, as it seems to imply that this part of the narra- 
tive is triply attested, whereas it is precisely the Oppo- 
site. For if the three Evangelists record an event in 
the same words, it is obviously derived from only 
one original source; whereas, if they record it in 
different words, it may be due to three independent 
witnesses. 

This triple tradition includes many of the parables 
of Christ, also several of His miracles, such as the 
stilling of the storm, the feeding of the five thousand, 
_ the curing of the Gadarene, and the Transfiguration ; 
but it stops short at the Passion. If, as is probable, 
it represents the testimony of a single witness, there 
is little difficulty in identifying him with St. Peter. 
As to the closing scenes of Christ’s life, there would of 


326 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV. 


course be numerous witnesses, and this may account 
for want of verbal agreement here. 

But it must be remembered that it 1s most i duniels 
for the whole of this original document to have been 
verbally incorporated in three separate Gospels, and 
often in a different order ; it is sure to have contained 
something else that was only copied by one or two. 
And therefore many critics are now of opinion that the 
so-called Triple Tradition was merely our St. Mark’s 
Gospel, practically all of which was copied, either by 
St. Matthew or St. Luke, if not by both. And this is 
certainly probable, for the many graphic details in this 
Gospel, which have led to its being called the first «m- 
pressions of the life of Christ, show that it must date 
from an extremely early time; so it was most likely 
known to the other Evangelists. And it would also 
agree with the statement of Papias (quoted in the last 
chapter) that St. Mark got his information from St. 
Peter. 

But this is not all; for our first and third Gospels 
also contain a common element, which is not in St. 
Mark, and this looks like another older document. 
While St. Luke expressly says that many had written 
before himself ; so we may safely assume that there 
were several such documents in existence at the time. 
And this was only natural, for the Christian religion 
spread with great rapidity, and from the very first 
what its missionaries preached was not a mere philo- 
sophy or system of morals, but the hfe and work, 
the death and resurrection of Christ. Indeed, St. Luke 
himself says that he only wrote his Gospel to assure 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 327 


Theophilus of the things wherein he had already been 
instructed, clearly showing that the course of in- 
struction must have included the whole of Christ’s 
life, from His Virgin-Birth to His Ascension.! And 
therefore from the very first Christian teachers must 
have had some accounts of that life. And that they 
left these with the Churches they founded is most 
probable. | 

And this is strongly confirmed by Sé. Paul’s Epistles. 
As is well known, four of these (Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., 
and Gal.) are admitted to be genuine by critics of all 
schools, such as Baur, Strauss, Renan, and the author 
of “Supernatural Religion’; and they show that the 
Gospel which he preached, and which he alludes to all 
through his Epistles, was based on certain historic 
facts connected with Christ’s life, especially His 
Resurrection, and that he was in the habit of commit- 
ting these to his converts.2, And that there was some 
written account of them is extremely probable, since 
Christianity arose in a literary age; and these same 
Epistles show how fully both preachers and converts 
were able to appreciate documentary teaching. In- 
deed that the early Christians should not have had 
some written account of their Founder’s Life is scarcely 
conceivable. And when we add to this the fact that 
many of the parables and other sayings of Christ have, 
as we shall see, strong claims to genuineness, and there- 
fore to a very early date, the conclusion seems irresistible 
that some biographies of Christ must have been com- 
posed very soon after His death. 

PelLuke 1. 4. StF gs, & Cor.ll..23-35 16 pg 


328 THE TRUTH,OP CHURISTIANTIN: CHAP. XV. 


And this has been rendered still more probable in 
recent years, by the discovery of quantities of Egyptian 
papyri, which show that writing was in common use 
among all classes at the time of Christ. And therefore 
we may say, in the words of Sir William Ramsay, 
‘So far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the 
general character of preceding and contemporary 
society, the first Christian account of the circumstances 
connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed 
to have been written in the year when Jesus died.’? 

And there are even some passages in our Gospels 
which seem to date still earlier ; such as Luke |. 68-79. 
This reads like a portion of the Old Testament, with 
its allusions to the God of Israel, the house of His 
servant David, His holy covenant, the oath which He 
sware unto Abraham our father, and above all the 
hopes of a Messiah, who should deliver us from the 
hands of our enemtes—t.e., the Romans. Of course 
Christians give a spiritual meaning to the passage, but 
this was obviously not its original sense. It is all 
perfectly consistent in the mouth of Zacharias shortly 
before the time of Christ, but could scarcely have been 
invented by anyone after the Crucifixion. And exactly 
the same may be said of other parts of this chapter 
(e.g., vv. 32-33). No doubt St. Luke incorporated 
it all from some early document ; but if so it strongly 
supports his own statement, that he had ample means 
of knowing the truth, from the very beginning. And 
this, he says, was the express reason why he deter- 
mined to write; so a more (apparently) trustworthy 


1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxxix., 1907, p. 203. 


~ THE GOSPELS: INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 329 


historian can scarcely be imagined. F ortunately, 
however, though dividing the Gospels into their original 
parts is an interesting study, it is in no way essential 
to our present argument. 

(2.) Their apparent truthfulness. 

We now come to the apparent truthfulness of the 
Gospels, and of this there are numerous indications. 
The writers, for instance, record several events which 
were not at all creditable to the Apostles, such as their 
cowardice when Christ was apprehended; and also 
many minute incidents which could hardly have been 
worth inventing. Moreover, when they relate Christ’s 
acts, they do so as a rule without remark, and do not 
dwell upon their excellence in the way St. Paul does, 
or stop to censure His foes. And the same calmness 
is Shown even when recording the details of His Passion 
and the triumph of His Resurrection. They express 
no indignation at the one, and no exultation at the 
other, but strictly limit themselves to the actual facts. 

This is indeed so striking, that it has sometimes been 
made the ground of objection. The Evangelists, it is 
said, describe the most stupendous miracles, even the 
Resurrection itself, as if they were common everyday » 
affairs; so they clearly did not realise the extra- 
ordinary nature of the events, and the extraordinary 
amount of evidence required to prove them. But this 
is only partly true, for they frequently record the 
astonishment felt by the crowds at Christ’s miracles : 
-and for themselves they expressed the wonder they 
felt at the Resurrection, not in words, but in deeds ; 

1 Luke 1, 1-4. | 


330 THE TRUTH. OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XV. 


devoting their whole lives to preaching it, and risking 
everything for its sake. 

Again, and this is very important, the facts recorded 
in the Gospels are often of such a kind as to bear un- 
mistakable signs of truthfulness. Is it conceivable, for 
example, that Christians in later times, who believed 
Christ to be the King of Glory, should ever have 7m- 
vented His prayer in Gethsemane, that the cup might 
pass from Him ; or His (seeming) cry of despair on the 
Cross that God had forsaken Him? Or would they 
have said that His relatives thought Him mad, unless 
it had been the case, or that one of His own Apostles 
actually ventured to rebuke Him ?' 

Moreover, the Evangelists record several of Christ’s 
hard sayings, as they are called, which must have pre- 
sented great difficulties. In particular may be men- 
tioned His statement that some of the bystanders were 
not to die till apparently the end of the world, and that 
a Christian’s faith could move mountains.” That such 
statements should have been invented in later years is 
out of the question ; so we can only conclude that they 
were actually spoken by Christ, and that the writers, 
knowing this, did not venture to omit them or soften 
them down, no matter what difficulties they presented. 
And the former passage gives us an indication of the 
date of the Gospels ; for they must obviously have been 
written when some of Christ’s hearers were still alive, 
and therefore within the first century. 

Again, nearly ali the parables of Christ have very 


eyMark 3.215 14.136" 15. 34e Be 32. 
2-Matt. 16, 28°; 17. 203, Marke 941.) 11. 2377-Lukei9. 27 17a 


“ 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Js 


strong marks of genuineness, as they are thoroughly 
natural in character, and suit the customs and scenery 
in Palestine. Moreover, they are unique in Christian 
literature. However strange we may think it, the 
early Christians seem never to have adopted Christ’s 
method of teaching by parables. And yet, if they had 
invented these parables, instead of merely recording 
them, they would doubtless have invented others like 
them. It is hence probable that these discourses are 
genuine ; and, if so, they must have been written down 
within a very few years, since the accurate preserva- 
tion of such long discourses by memory would have 
been most difficult. 

On the other hand, it must be admitted that there 
are some discrepancies between the Gospels ; but these 
are as a rule so trivial that they do not affect their 
substantial accuracy. For example,! St. Matthew 
_ relates that at Christ’s Baptism the Voice from Heaven 
said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased ;’ and the other Evangelists, ‘ Thou art my 
beloved Son, in ¢hee I am well pleased.’ Now the Voice 
may have spoken in the third or in the second person, 
but not in both. There is a clear verbal discrepancy, 
whatever words were used or in whatever language 
they were spoken. Again, St. Matthew records the 
passage about the Queen of the South as being spoken 
just after, and St. Luke as just before, the similar 
- passage about the men of Nineveh, though both can 
hardly be correct. While, however, the discrepancies 

are plain, their unimportance is at least equally so. 
* Matt: 3.-17-; 12.425 Mark 1. 11: ‘Luke 3. 22'S Ui 33 


332 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV. 


These Gospels, then, on the whole, have every appear- 
ance of being candidly and truthfully written. 

(3.) Thetr probable date. 

Lastly we come to what is perhaps the most impor- 
tant point of all, the probable date of the Synoptic 
Gospels. And there are strong reasons for fixing this 
before the fall of Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. For instance, 
several subjects are discussed, such as the lawfulness 
of the Jews paying tribute to Cesar, which would have 
had no interest after that event. And that conversa- 
tions on such subjects should have been invented in 
later days, or even thought worth recording, is most 
improbable. Again in St. Matthew we read that the 
potter’s field, where strangers were buried, was called 
the field of blood unto this day. And this could scarcely 
have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
when the whole city was little more than a heap of 
ruins. Of course, on the other hand it could not 
have been written immediately after the time of 
Christ, but twenty-years would probably be a sufficient 
interval. 

Still more important is the prophetic description of 
the fall of Jerusalem itself, which seems confused by 
the Evangelists with that of the Day of Judgment, 
St. Matthew saying, and both the others implying, 
that the one would immediately follow the other.’ 
Had the Gospels been written after the former event, 
it is almost certain that the writers would have dis- 
tinguished between the two; indeed, their not doing 


1 Matt. 27. 8; see also 28. 15. 
2 Matt. 24. 3, 29, Mark 13. 24; Luke 21. 27. 


: 
; > 
ee ee 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 333 


so is scarcely intelligible, except on the supposition 
that when they wrote both events were yet future. 

And this is strongly confirmed by the curious hint 
given to the readers both in Matthew and Mark to 
understand, and act on Christ’s advice, and leave the 
city and flee to the mountains, before the siege became 
too severe. It is out of the question that such a warn- 
ing should have been added after the siege, when it 
would have been utterly useless. It was evidently 
written before (probably not later than A.D. 65), when 
the storm seemed to be gathering ; and therefore if it 
is an interpolation, as it certainly seems to be, it 
proves a still earlier date for the rest of the chapter. 
Moreover, none of the Evangelists have altered the 
passage, as later writers might have done, to make it 
_ agree with the event; for as far as we know, the 
Christians did not go to the mountains, but to Pella, 
a city in the Jordan valley. 

St. Luke, it will be noticed, omits the hint just 
alluded to, and as his prophecy of the siege is rather 
more exact than the others, it is often thought to have 
been written after the event. But this is a needless 
assumption, for the hint would have been quite useless 
for Theophilus, to whom the Gospel was addressed ; 
and the prophecy is anyhow no closer than that in 
Deut. 28., which everyone admits was written centuries 
before (Chapter XI.). 

On the whole then everything points to our Synoptic 
- Gospels having been composed some years before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, say A.D. 50-70; and hence 

1 Matt. 24. 16; Mark 13. 14; Luke 21. 21; Eusebius ili. 5. 


~ 


334 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XV. 


they were most likely written by the Evangelists, to 
whom they have been universally ascribed. _ 

And, it may be added, in regard to the Evangelists 
themselves, St. Matthew the Apostle was a publican or 
tax-collector, and therefore just the sort of person to 
keep records.!. St. Mark came of a well-to-do family, 
as his relative, Barnabas, had some property ; and his 
mother, Mary, had a large house at Jerusalem, where 
Christians used to assemble, and where it has been 
thought the Last Supper was held ; in which case the 


young man who followed from here to Gethsemane 


would probably be St. Mark himself. Indeed this 
latter incident seems so pointless, that it is hard to 
account for its being recorded, unless the writer felt a 
personal interest in it.2 And in any case, as he was 
the intimate friend of St. Peter, he must have been 
well acquainted with the facts he relates, most of which 
occurred when St. Peter was present. 

And St. Luke (as we shall see in the next chapter) 
was a doctor, who got his information from eyewitnesses, 
and if he was the companion of Cleopas, as is perhaps 
probable (for such a graphic narrative must have come 
from one who was present, and yet the language is 
thoroughly that of St. Luke), he would also have had 
some slight knowledge of Christ himself.* 

All three must thus have been well educated, and 
quite in a position to write Gospels if they wanted to. 
While, on the other hand, none of them seem to have 
taken a prominent part in the founding of Christianity, 


1 Matt. 9. 9. 2 Acts 4. 37; 12. 12; Col. 4) 10; Mark 14-61; 
3 Col. 4. 14; Luke 1. 2; 24. 18; Expositor, Feb., 1904. 


} 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 335 


so there was no reason for ascribing the Gospels to 
them, rather than to such great men as St. Peter and 
St. Paul, unless they actually wrote them. 

(C.) THE FourtTH GOSPEL. 

We pass on now to the Fourth Gospel, and will first 
examine the internal arguments as to its authorship, 
which are strongly in favour of its being the work of 
-St. John ; and then the two counter-arguments, said to 
be derived by comparing it with the Synoptic Gospels, 
and the Book of Revelation. 

(1.) Its authorship. 

In the first place, the writer appears to have been a 
Jew. This is shown by his frequently quoting the Old 
Testament, and twice from the Hebrew instead of the 
Septuagint, where there is a difference between them. 
He was also well acquainted with the Jewish feasts, he 
alone having recorded Christ’s attendance at them ;2 
with Jewish prejudices, such as their ill-feeling against 
the Samaritans ; and with Jewish customs, those in 
regard to purification being frequently alluded to.3 
The only counter-argument is from the frequent use 
of the term the Jews ; but this does not necessarily 
show that the writer was not a Jew himself, but 
merely that his intended readers were not. A Jew 
writing for Gentile Christians might certainly use the 
phrase. 

Secondly, the writer appears to have lived in the first 
century. This is probable from his intimate acquaint- 


1 John 13. 18; 19. 37. 
= fob Cares Gemtre 703% 10. 22.8: 13.1. 
eJObnIZ.WGm hinge bee 29i5 195.37. 


336 THE TRUTII OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHAp. xv. 


ance with Jerusalem, and as before said that city was 
only a heap of ruins after A.D. 70. Thus he speaks of 
Bethesda, the pool near the sheep-gate, having five 
porches ; of Solomon’s porch ; of the pool of Siloam ; 
of the brook Kedron ; of the place that is called the 
Pavement, or Gabbatha; of the place of a skull, or 
Golgotha ; and of the Temple with its treasury, its 
oxen, sheep, and doves for sacrifice, and its money- 
changers for changing foreign money into Jewish, in 
which alone the Temple tax could be paid. And he 
also knew that it had been founded forty-six years 
before the time of Christ’s ministry. 

Moreover, the controversies discussed in the Gospel 
are such as would have had no interest even early in 
the second century. Then the important disputes were 
about the Gnostic theories as to the origin of evil, as 
well as such questions as the time of celebrating Easter, 
and Church government. But none of these are even 
alluded to in the Gospel, and yet a writer of that age 
was sure to have taken one or other side in these con- 
troversies, and, if a forger, would not have scrupled to 
introduce some favourable evidence into his pretended 
Gospel. On the other hand, the duty of observing the 
Sabbath is discussed at length, which would have had 
no interest in the second century. And the Gospel is 
also full of the hopes of the Jews, of a temporal Messiah, 
and the expectations they had formed about ae 
which, of course, perished with Jerusalem.? 

Thirdly, the writer appears to have been an eye- 
witness of what he describes. He twice asserts this 


1 John 2, 20. 2 E.g., John 7. 27, 31, 42; 12. 34. 


nS ee ee a r 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 337 


himself, as well as in an Epistle which is generally 
allowed to be by the same writer, where he positively 
declares that he had both seen, heard, and touched his 
Master.! So, if not true, the work must be a deliberate 
forgery ; and this is certainly improbable. Moreover, 
the whole narrative seems to imply that the writer was 
an eye-witness. For instance, he frequently identifies 
himself with the Apostles, recording their feelings and 
reflections in a way which would be very unlikely for 
any forger to have thought of. Would a forger, for 
instance, have thought of inventing questions which 
the Apostles wanted to ask their Master, though they 
were afraid to do so? Or would he have thought it 
worth repeating so often that they did not understand 
at the time the real significance of the events they took 
part in?2 Or would he have said that they all went to 
Capernaum, merely to add that they stayed there not 
many days, and without giving a hint as to why they 
went, or what they did ?3 Or again, would he have 
invented such a strange discourse as that about the 
Bread of Life, and then say at the end that it had the 
effect of driving away many of Christ’s own disciples ?4 

The writer is also very minute as to times and places. 
Take, for instance, the passage 1. 29—2. 1, with its 
expressions On the morrow, Again on the morrow, About 
the tenth hour, On the morrow, And the third day. It 
reads like extracts from an old diary, and why should 
all these insignificant details be recorded ? What did it 


+ John 1. 14;-19. 35; 1 John 1.1. 
gle, John 2.17, 22 *74, 27 ; 12.6; 13. 28 ; 16. 17; 21. 12, 
3 John 2.12. 4 John 6. 32-66. 

22 


—_ 


338 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XV. 


matter half a century later whether it was the same 
day, or the morrow, or the third day? The only 
reasonable explanation is that the writer was present 
himself (being of course the unnamed companion of 
St. Andrew) ; that this was the turning-point in his 
life when he first saw his Lord; and that therefore 
every detail, however unimportant, was stamped on 
his memory, and he loved to recall it. 

And it should be noticed in passing that this passage 
explains an apparent difficulty in St. Mark, and the 
other Synoptics, where it is stated that these Apostles 
were called to follow Christ, after the death of St. John 
the Baptist; but with an abruptness, and sudden 
obedience on their part, which it is hard to believe.* 
We here learn, however, that they had already been 
with Christ some months before, in company with the 
Baptist, so they were doubtless prepared for the call 
when it came. 

And the passage, like many others, also bears internal 
marks of truthfulness. In particular may be men- 
tioned the avowal of Nathanael, Thou art the Son of 
God, thou art the King of Israel, implying that the 
latter title was at least as honourable as the former. 
No Christian in later times, when Christ was obviously 
not the King of Israel (except in a purely spiritual 
sense), and when the title Son of God had come to mean 
so much more than it ever did to the Jews, would have 
invented such a phrase as this. Nor would he have 
put into the mouth of Philip the words, ‘ Jesus of 
Nazareth, the Son of Joseph. It was of course quite 

1 Mark 1. 14-20, 


, 
EEE 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 339 


natural for Philip to have said so at the time (as during 
His life Christ could not have been otherwise known 
than as the Son of Joseph), but it speaks much for the 
writer’s candour to have recorded it, more especially as 
the latter words were quite needless, and might easily 
have been omitted. And little marks of genuineness 
like these are of considerable value in the Fourth Gospel, 
because it is generally admitted to be the work of a single 
author ; whereas in the Synoptics they can always be 
explained as fragments of some older document. 

Lastly, if we admit that the writer was an eye- 
witness, it can hardly be disputed that he was the 
Apostle St. John. Indeed, were he anyone else, it is 
strange that an ‘apostle of such importance should not 
be once mentioned throughout the Gospel. It is also 
significant that the other John, who is described in the 
Synoptics as John the Baptist, to distinguish him from 
the Apostle, is called in this Gospel merely John. No 
confusion could arise if, and only if, the writer himself 
were the Apostle John. While still more important is 
the fact that at the close of the last chapter, which 
seems to be a sort of appendix to the Gospel (though 
written in almost exactly the same style) we have the 
solemn declaration of St. John’s disciples, who knew 
him personally, that he was its author, that he had 
witnessed the things he wrote about, and that what he 
said was true; and testimony more ancient or more 
conclusive can scarcely be imagined. 

With regard to the date of the book, we can say little 
1 He is called the disciple whom Jesus loved, but this evidently 
means St. John. 

22—-2 


s 


- 


340 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV. 


for certain, but the extreme care which is taken in these 
closing verses to explain exactly what Christ did, and 
did not say as to St. John’s dying before His coming 
again, seems to imply that the matter was still un- 
decided, in other words that St. John was still alive, 
though very old, when they were written. And if so 
the Gospel must have been published towards the close 
of the first century. 

(2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. . 

But, as before said, there are two arguments against 
the authenticity of this Gospel. The first is that the 
Christ of the Fourth Gospel is almost a different person 
from the Christ of the other Gospels. His miracles 
with one exception are all different, and so are His 
discourses both in substance and in style. His char- 
acter is also different, since, instead of inculcating 
moral virtues, as in the Sermon on the Mount, He keeps 
asserting His own Divine nature. While, lastly, where 
the Gospels cover the same ground there are dis- 
crepancies between them. From all this it is urged 
the Fourth Gospel is evidently unhistorical, and written 
long after the time of Christ, when the Church held high 
views concerning His Divinity. This objection is really 
threefold, and each part of it admits of a complete 
and satisfactory answer. 

To begin with, the fact that the Fourth Gospel 
narrates different events and discourses in the life of 
Christ from what we find in the other three, and this 
to an extent which can scarcely be accidental, must 
of course be admitted. But what then ? Why should 
not one biography of Christ purposely narrate certain 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 341 


events in His life, which the writer thought important, 
but which had been omitted in previous accounts ? 
This is what occurs frequently at the present day, and 
why should it not have occurred then? The Fourth 
Gospel may have been written on purpose to suppPle- 
ment some other accounts. 

Nor is this mere conjecture, for there is strong 
evidence from the Gospel itself that it was actually 
written with some such purpose. Thus the writer 
refers to many events without describing them, and in 
such a way as to show that he supposed his readers 
knew about them. He assumes, for instance, that they 
know about St. John the Baptist being imprisoned 
about Joseph being the reputed father of Christ, about 
the appointment of the Twelve, and about Mary having 
anointed the Lord.1_ And when we add to this the fact 
that many important events in the life of Christ are 
omitted altogether, such as His Birth, His Baptism, 
His instituting the Eucharist, and His Ascension, it 
makes it almost certain that the Gospel was written 
for well-instructed Christians, who possessed some other 
biographies of Christ. And everything points to these 
being our present Synoptic Gospels. 

And then as to the style of language ascribed to 
Christ in the Fourth Gospel being different from that 
in the Synoptics. This is no doubt partly true, but we 
have in these other Gospels at least two specimens of 
similar style; one of which occurs in the so-called 
Triple Tradition.2. And this shows conclusively that 


+ John 3. 24; 6.42, 70311. 2. 
2 Matt. 11. 25-27; 24. 36; Mark 13. 32 ; Luke 10, 21, 22: 


* 


342 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP,-XV. 


Christ did occasionally speak in this manner ; and there 
is no reason why St. John should not have purposely 
preserved such discourses because the other Evangelists 
had neglected to do so. 

Moreover, Christ’s discourses in St. John are, as a 
rule, addressed to the upper and learned classes, like - 
Nicodemus, in Jerusalem, while those in the Synoptics 
are addressed to the multitudes 7m Galilee ; which will 
also account for some difference between them. 
Indeed, judging by the Synoptics alone, some critics 
have thought that Christ’s ministry never reached 
Jerusalem, till just before His death. But this would 
be most unlikely, and St. John’s account that Christ, 
like other pious Jews, regularly went up to the feasts 
there is far more probable, especially as a religious 
Teacher would scarcely have avoided the chief city. 
And it is even implied by the Synoptics, both in the 
word often (‘ How often would I have gathered thy 
children,’ etc.), which must mean that Christ had 
frequently visited’ the city, and preached there ; and 
also in the reference to an earlier visit of Christ to 
Martha and Mary, which shows that He had been to 
Bethany (close to Jerusalem) some time before. 

The next part of the objection is that the Character 
assigned to Christ in the Fourth Gospel is different 
from that in the other three. And this also is partly 
true, for the Fourth Gospel asserts the Divinity of 
Christ more directly than the others, which only imply 
it (see Chapter XX.). And very probably the writer 
did so intentionally, thinking that this aspect of 

1 Matt, 23. 37; Luke 13? 34. 2 Luke 10. 38. 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 343 


Christ’s character had not been sufficiently emphasised 
in the previous accounts. Indeed, he implies it 
himself, for he says that he omitted much that he 
might have inserted, and merely recorded what he 
did in order to convince his readers that Jesus was the 
Christ, the Son of God.! 

But in any case no argument for a late date can be 
drawn from this, for the admittedly genuine Epistles of 
St. Paul, which are probably as early as the Synoptic 
Gospels (perhaps earlier) describe exactly the same 
_Christ as is portrayed in the Fourth Gospel, speaking 
of His Divinity, Pre-existence, and Incarnation. And 
from the way in which St. Paul alludes to these doc- 
trines he evidently considered them the common belief 
of all Christians when he wrote, about A.D. 54. And 
therefore the fact of the Fourth Gospel laying stress on 
these doctrines is no reason whatever against either its 
authenticity or its early date. It is indeed just the 
opposite, for we know from the Book of Revelation 
(which even hostile critics admit to be genuine) that 
these doctrines were held by St. John himself (chap. xx.) 
so their occurring in the Fourth Gospel is a distinct 
argument in favour of his authorship. 

Lastly, as to the discrepancies. Many of these can 
be explained satisfactorily ; possibly all could if we 
had fuller knowledge. But even if discrepancies exist, 
the inference against the genuineness of the Fourth 
Gospel does not follow. For the writer, whoever he 
was, must certainly have lived after the Synoptics 
were in circulation, and, as we have seen, probably 

Sonn 20. 31; 


344 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cnap. xv. 


wrote to supplement them. Now, if he “were an 
obscure Christian, or lived many years after the events 
of which he pretended he was an eye-witness, he would 
have been careful not to contradict the received 
accounts. But if he were the Apostle John, writing 
from memory after the lapse of many years, he might 
well narrate things somewhat differently from the 
others, and, considering his own authority, would not 
have thought it necessary to make his account har- 
monise with theirs. Slhght discrepancies, then, with 
the other three Gospels are no argument against the 
Fourth. 

On the other hand, there are several undesigned 
coincidences between them which are a strong argu- 
ment in favour of the accuracy of both. A couple of 
examples must suffice here. The first refers to the 
accusation brought against Christ of destroying and 
rebuilding the Temple in three days. This is alluded 
to by both St. Matthew and St. Mark; but St. John 
alone records the ;words on which it was founded, 
though he does not himself mention the charge, and 
quotes the words in quite a different connection.} 

The other example refers to feeding the five thousand, 
which is the only miracle the Four Gospels have in 
common.” St. Mark says that this occurred in a desert 
place, where Christ had gone to rest for a while, and to 
avoid the crowd of persons who were coming and going 
at Capernaum. But he gives no hint as to why there 
was this crowd just at that time. St. John says 


1 Matt. 26. 61; Mark 14. 58; John 2. 109. 
2 Matt. 14. 13; Mark 6, 31; Luke 9. 10; John 6. 4. 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 345 


nothing about this temporary seclusion, nor of the 
great crowd which occasioned it ; but he happens to 
mention, what fully explains both, that it was shortly 
before the Passover. Now we know from Josephus 
and other sources that at the Passover enormous 
multitudes flocked to Jerusalem from all sides, so 
that Capernaum, which lay on a main road from the 
north, would naturally be thronged with persons 
‘coming and going’; and this explains everything, 
even the little detail, as to the people sitting on the 
green grass, for grass is only green in Palestine in the 
spring, 7.e., at the time of the Passover. 

But can anyone think that the writer of the Fourth 
Gospel purposely made his account to harmonise with 
the others, and yet left the agreement so incidental 
that not one reader in a thousand ever discovers it ? 
The only reasonable explanation is that the event was 
actually true, and that both writers had independent 
knowledge of this. 

The objection, then, as to the connection of the 
Fourth Gospel with the Synoptic ones must be put 
aside. It was plainly meant to supplement them, and 
it shows not a different Christ, but a different aspect 
of the same Christ; while the slight discrepancies, 
especially when combined with the undesigned coinci- 
dences, support its genuineness. 

(3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. 

The other objection is perhaps a more important 
ene. The Book of Revelation is now generally ad- 
mitted to be the work of St. John. Indeed, the 
evidence in favour of this is very strong, both internal 


346 THE “TRUTH OF CHRISTIANFDY. CHAP. XV. 


and external, since it is expressly assigned to St. John 
by Justin Martyr,! and its date is generally fixed at 
A.D. 68 ; though some critics still prefer A.D. 95, which 
is the date apparently given by Ireneus. And vet it is 
said it cannot be by the same writer as the Fourth 
Gospel tor three reasons. The first is, that while the 
Gospel is anonymous, the Revelation is not so. But 
this is easily explained, since in the Old Testament the 
Historical Books are nearly always anonymous, and 
the Prophetical ones never so; and a Jew might 
naturally follow this example. 

Secondly, there is a considerable difference in style. 
But this is partly accounted for by the difference in 
subject-matter ; the Gospel being a plain historical 
narrative, and the Revelation a prophetical vision. 
And the same writer, when treating of a different 
subject, or writing for a different purpose, or even at 
a different time of life, often uses a different style. 

The third reason is that the Greek of the Revelation 
is very abrupt, with numerous faults of grammar, and 
quite unlike that of the Gospel, which is in good Greek. 
And therefore it is urged a Galilean fisherman like 
St. John, though he might have been sufficiently 
educated (as his father was well off, and kept servants)? 
to have written the former, could scarcely have 
written the latter. But considering that some paris 
of the Revelation (Chap. 18 for instance) are in very 
good Greek, many critics consider that the abruptness 
of other parts was intentional, with a view of imitating 
the vigorous style of the Old Testament Prophets. But 

1 Dial., 81. 2 Mark 1. 20. 


THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 347 


perhaps a better explanation is that the Revelation 
was written by St. John himself, as he is not likely to 
have had friends in Patmos; and when writing the 
Gospel in his old age, he had the assistance of a Greek 
disciple. | 

On the other side, it must be remembered that 
though the two books are different in language, they 
are the same in their teaching ; for (as just said) the 
characteristic doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that of 
the Divinity of Christ, is asserted almost as plainly 
in the Revelation. And even the striking expression 
that Christ is the Logos, or Word, occurs in both the 
books, though it is not found elsewhere in the New 
‘Testament, except in one of St. John’s Epistles.1_ It 
was evidently a favourite term with this Apostle, 
though it is worth noting that he never puts it into 
the mouth of Christ Himself, as an unscrupulous 
writer might have done. 

On the whole, then, this objection is not an insuper- 
able one, while, as already shown, the Fourth Gospel 
has very strong internal marks of genuineness. And 
when we combine these with the equally strong 
external testimony, it forces us to conclude that 
St. John was the author. This Gospel, then, like the 
Synoptic ones, must be considered authentic ; indeed, 
the evidence in favour of them all is overwhelming. 


Me Onn. beat John 1. 1 ;, Rev. 19. 13. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM THE 
EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS. 


Importance of the Acts, as it is by the writer of the Third Gospel. 


(A.) Irs AccuRAcY. 
Three examples of this : 
(1.) The titles of various rulers. 
(2.) The riot at Ephesus. 
(3.) The agreement with St. Paul’s Epistles. 


pa to; UNITY. 
The We sections are not by a different author. 


(C.) Irs AUTHORSHIP. 
The writer was a companion of St. Paul, and a medical 
man ; and hence probably St. Luke. 


(D.) Its Date. 
There are strong reasons for fixing this at the close of 
St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 60; and this 
shows an earlier date for all the Synoptic Gospels. 


WE have now to consider an argument of great. 


importance derived from the Acts of the Apostles. 
This book is universally admitted to be by the same 
writer as the Third Gospel, as is indeed obvious from 
the manner in which both are addressed to Theophilus, 
from the former treatise being mentioned in the opening 
verse of the Acts, and from the perfect agreement in 
style and language. Hence arguments for or against 
348 


: 
A 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 349 


the antiquity of the Acts affect the Third Gospel also, 
and therefore, to some extent, all the Synoptic Gospels. 
And though the external testimony to the book is not 
so strong as that to the Gospels, it has very strong 
internal marks of genuineness. 

(A.) Irs AccURACY. 

And first as to its extreme accuracy. This book, 
unlike the Gospels, deals with a large number of public 
men and places, many of which are well known to us 
from secular history, while inscriptions referring to 
others have been recently discovered. It is thus liable 
to be detected at every step if inaccurate ; and yet, 
with the doubttul exception of the date of the rebellion 
of Theudas, and some details as to the death of Herod 
Agrippa,! no error can be discovered. As this is prac- 
tically undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence in 
detail, but will give three examples only. 

(1.) The titles of various rulers. 

And we will commence with the tiles given to differ- 

ent rulers. As is well known, the Roman provinces 
were of two kinds, imperial and senatorial, the former 
being governed by fropretors, or when less important 
by procurators, and the latter by proconsuls, though 
they frequently changed hands. Moreover, indi- 
vidual places had often special names for their rulers ; 
and yet in every case the writer of the Acts (though 
his allusions are quite incidental) always uses the 
proper title. 

For example,” the ruler at Cyprus is styled proconsul. 


1 Acts 5. 36; 12. 21-23; Josephus, Antiq., xx. 5; xix. 8. 
weacte 137 2) LStho rely. 4o°9 20.20. 26. 30 7728.7. 


350 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVI. 


This used to be thought a mistake, but we now know 
that it is correct; for though Cyprus had previously 
belonged to the Emperor, it had been exchanged with 
the Senate for another province before the time in 
question. And an inscription! found there at Soli has 
the words in Greek, Paulus proconsul, probably the 
Sergius Paulus of the Acts. Cyprus, it may be added, 
subsequently changed hands again. 

In the same way Gallio is correctly described as pro- 
consul of Achaia. For though this province was | 
imperial up to A.D. 44, and independent after A.D. 66, it 
was senatorial in between, when the writer referred 
to it. And an inscription, recently found at Delphi, 
shows that Gallio was proconsul in a.p. 52, which 
agrees very well with the chronology of the Acts.2 At 
Ephesus the mention of proconsul is equally correct - 
and so also is the title of governor or procurator, applied 
to both Felix and Festus ; while at Malta we read of 
the chtef-man ; the accuracy of which title is also proved 
by inscriptions, though as far as we know it was 
peculiar to that island.? 

Again, Herod Agrippa, shortly before his death, is’ 
styled king. Now we learn from other sources that 
he had this title for the last three years of his govern- 
ment (A.D. 41-44), though there had been no king in 
Judea for the previous thirty years, nor for many 
centuries afterwards. Moreover, his son is also called 

1 Cyprus, by Cesnola (London, 1877), p. 425. : 

2 Quoted from M. E. Bourguet in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 
January, 1908. 


3 Boeckh’s Corp. Ins. Lat. X., No. 7495; Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 
5754- 


THE GOSPELS > EVIDENCE OF’ ACTS. 352 


King Agrippa, though it is implied that he was not 
king of Judza, which was governed by Festus, but of 
some other provinces. And yet he seems to have held 
some official position in regard to the Jews, since 
Festus laid Paul’s case before him, as if he were entitled 
to hear it. And all this is quite correct ; for Agrippa, 
though King of Chalcis, and not Judea, was yet (being 
a Jew) entrusted by the Emperor with the management 
of the Jewish Temple and Treasury, and the choice of 
the High Priests, and was thus a good deal mixed up 
in Jewish affairs.1 And equally correct is the remark- 
able fact that he used to have his sister Bernice acting 
with him on public occasions.? 

These notices of the Herods are all confirmed by 
Josephus, but the view, advocated by a few critics, 
that the writer of the Acts got his information from 
Josephus, and therefore wrote after A.D. 100, is quite 
untenable. It would only account for a small part of 
his accuracy, and would make it more than ever 
difficult to account for the remainder ; not to mention 
the discrepancies as to Theudas, and the death of 
Herod, where he disagrees with Josephus in several 
particulars. 

Again, the names pretors and lictors for the magis- 
trates and sergeants at Philippi are probably correct, 
since that was a Roman colony, though they would not 
be correct elsewhere. At Thessalonica, on the other 
hand, the magistrates are called folitarchs, translated 

1 Acts 12. 1, 20; 25. 13, 14; Josephus, Antiq., xviii., 6, xix. 5; 


eT. O.'O: 
2 Acts 25. 13, 23; Josephus, Wars, ii. 16; Life, xi. 


352 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xvi. 


‘rulers of the city.’! This name does not occur in 
any classical author in this form, and consequently 
the writer of the Acts used to be accused of a blunder 
here. His critics were unaware that an old arch was 
standing all the time at this very place, the modern 
Salonica, with an inscription containing this very word, 
saying it was built when certain men were the poli- 
tarchs. The arch was destroyed in 1876, but the 
stone containing the inscription was preserved, and is 
now in the British Museum.? And since then other 
inscriptions have been found, showing that the term 
was in use all through the first century. 

Nor is this accuracy confined to well-known places on 
the coast ; it extends wherever the narrative extends, 
even to the interior of Asia Minor. Thus at Iconium,? 
though the rulers are not mentioned, the people are | 
correctly called Greeks, that being a Greek city ; while 
at the adjacent towns of Antioch and Lystra (the site 
of which latter was only identified in 1885), they are 
with equal correctiveness called the multitude, a term 
which frequently occurs in the inscriptions there. It 
is also worth noting that according to the writer, 
Lystra was a city of Lycaonia, but Iconium was not, 
and it has been recently proved that this was correct ; 
and it is interesting, because many classical authors 
wrongly assign Iconium to Lycaonia; and on the other 
hand Lystra, though belonging to that province in the 
first century, was separated from it early in the 

1 Acts 16. Davee seis LT Gi 


2 In the Central Hall, near the Library. 
3 Acts 14, I-11. 


THE GOSPELS: EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 353 


second ; so that a late writer, or one ignorant of the 
locality, could easily have made a mistake in either 
case. 

ts (2.) The riot at Ephesus. 

As a second example we will take the account of 
the vot at Ephesus. All the allusions here to the wor- 
ship of Diana, including her image believed to have 
fallen from heaven (perhaps a meteorite roughly cut 
into shape), her magnificent shrine, the small silver 
models of this which were used as charms, her wide- 
spread worship, and the fanatical devotion of her 
worshippers, are all in strict agreement with what we 
know from other sources. 

Moreover, inscriptions discovered there have con- 
firmed the narrative in a remarkable manner. They 
have shown that the theatre was the recognised place 
of public meeting ; that there were certain officers 
(who presided at games, etc.) called asiarchs ; that 
another well-known Ephesian officer was called the 
town-clerk ; that Ephesus had the curious designation 
of temple-keeper of Diana (long thought to be a diffi- 
culty) ; that temple-robbing and blasphemy were both 
_ crimes which were specially recognised by the Ephesian 
laws ; and that the term regular assembly was a technical 
one in use at Ephesus.? All this minute accuracy is 
hard to explain unless the narrative came from one 

1 Paper by Sir W. Ramsay in Transactions of Victoria Institute, — 


' vol, Xxxix., 1907, pp. 209-210; and article Iconium in Hastings’ 


Dict. of the Bible. 
2 Comp. Acts. 19. 29-39; with inscriptions found in the Great 


Theatre. Wood’s Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877, PP$43547; $3058; 
15, 39- 
23 


354 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVI. 


who was present during the riot, and recorded what he 
actually saw and heard. 

(3.) The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles. 

Our third example shall be of a different kind 
from the preceding. If we compare the biography 
of St. Paul given in the Acts with the letters of that 
Apostle, many of them written to the very ‘Churches 
and persons described there, we shall find a complete 
though unobtrusive agreement between them. These 
undesigned coincidences are both numerous and striking, 
and very unlikely to have been deliberately arranged. 
Here we must confine ourselves to a single Epistle, 
and select that to the Romans, which is one of those 
universally admitted to be genuine. Though not 
actually dated, it was evidently written at the close 
of St. Paul’s second visit to Greece ; and therefore, if 
mentioned in the Acts, would come in at 20. 3; and 
its incidental notices are all consistent with this time 
and place. 

Thus St. Paul says that he was going up to , Jerueian 
with alms from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor in 
that city. Now in the Acts it is stated that St. Paul 
had just passed through these provinces, and was on 
his way to Jerusalem, though there is no mention 
about the alms here. But it happens to be alluded to 
some chapters later, without, however, mentioning 
then where the alms came from." 

We also learn that St. Paul’s missionary travels up 


till now had extended from Jerusalem as far as Idlyrt- | 


cum. Now Illyricum is not once mentioned in the 
1 Rom. 15. 25, 26; Acts 19. 21; 24. 17. 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 355 


Acts ; so there can be no intentional agreement here, 
but yet there is agreement. For we gather from 
various places that St. Paul had preached from Jeru- 
salem all through what we now call Asia Minor, and 
just before the date of this Epistle had gone through 
Macedonia, which was his limit in this direction. And 
as this was the adjacent province to Illyricum, it 
exactly agrees with the Epistle.! 

Among other points of agreement may be mentioned 
St. Paul’s friendship with Priscilla and Aquila, who 
had now apparently returned to Rome: that he had 
himself long wished to visit Rome, and intended doing 
so after his visit to Jerusalem ;2 that his feelings 
were very despondent as he set out on his return 
journey to the latter city, having doubts as to what 
would befall him there ; and that Timothy, Gaius, and 
Sosipater among others were with him when he wrote. 

In regard to all these passages, it should be noticed 
that the coincidence is in every case undesigned. — This 
is the whole point of the argument, though, unfortu- 
nately, just alluding to the statements as we have done 
here, often gives the idea that they are identical, and ~ 
might easily be copied one from the other. But if 
anyone will take the trouble to compare the parallel 
statements with their contexts, he will see that this 
is out of the question. In other words, the writer of 
the Acts, whoever he was, did not get his information 
on these points from this Epistle, but had independent 


! Rom. 15. 19; Acts 20. 2. 
2. Rom, 116; 23,02e a 33 Aots 18. 24910 ot: 
3 Rom. 15. 30; 16. 21-23; Acts 20. Aj 22) 


23—2 


350 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XvI- 


knowledge of them. And if so, considering that they 
include St. Paul’s plans and feelings, as well as the 
extent of his travels, etc., it follows that he must have i 
been an intimate friend of his. And, as before said, 
this is a mere sample of the evidence. 

While, however, there are thus numerous slight and 
undesigned coincidences, several more obvious ones 
do not occur ; and there are even some apparent dis- 
-crepancies between the Acts and Galatians. These 
can indeed be reconciled. But what if they could not ? 
A late writer must have known Galatians, and must 
have known that his readers knew it too; and is he 
likely to have seemed to contradict it ? 

We may now sum up the evidence as to the accuracy 
of the Acts. The above instances are only specimens 
of many which might be given. The writer knew 
about Jerusalem and Athens just as well as about 
Ephesus. While his account of St. Paul's voyage from 
Caesarea to Italy, including as it does the description 
of a variety of places, the climate, and prevailing winds 
of the Mediterranean, and the phrases and customs of 
seamen, is so accurate, that critics of all schools have 
admitted that he is describing a voyage he had 
actually experienced. In short, the Book of the Acts 
is full of correct details throughout, and it is hard to 
believe that anyone but a contemporary could have 
written it. 7 

(B.) Irs UNITY. 

We have next to consider whether the book was the 
work of a single man or a compilation. As is well 


known, certain portions are written in the first person ~ 


34 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 357 


plural, and are commonly called the ‘ We’ sections.! 


The most obvious explanation of this, and the one 
generally adopted, is that the writer was a companion 
of St. Paul during these portions of his travels ; and 
the internal evidence is strongly in favour of a common 
authorship for these sections and the rest of the book. 

In the first place, the Janguage is extremely similar, 
there being numerous coincidences in style, and the 
use in common of over forty important words and 
expressions, which do not occur elsewhere in the New 
Testament except in the Third Gospel. This is in fact 
so striking that those who maintain a different author- 
ship admit that the compiler who incorporated the 
earlier We sections in his own narrative re-wrote them 
to some extent in his own style. But this would 
require great literary skill on his part, and it is incon- 
ceivable that he should have allowed the We to remain 
at all. It is clearly the first thing he would have 
altered. Some critics, indeed, such as Harnack, 
would even go further, and say that the agreement in 
style is so extremely close, that they must not only have 
been written by the same man, but at about the same 
time.” 7 ~ 

There are also slight historical connections between 


the two portions. For example, in the earlier chapters 


several incidents are recorded, in which Philip, one of 
the Seven, was concerned ; and why should these have 
been selected ? The writer was not present himself, 
and many far-more important events must have oc- 


‘Acts 16. 9-40 5:20. s—21. 18°: 27. 1—28. 16. 
2 Luke the Physician, translated by Wilkinson, 1907, p. 53. 


358 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVI. 


curred, of which he gives no account. But a casual 
verse in the We sections explains everything: the 
writer, we are told, stayed many days with Philip, 
and of course learnt these particulars then. And as 
it seems to have been his rule only to record what he 
knew for certain, he might well have left out other 
and more important events, of which he had not such 
accurate knowledge. And the earlier reference to 
Philip which ends with the apparently pointless remark 
that he came to Cesarea, without saying why or where- 
fore, is also explained, since this was the place at which 
the writer afterwards met him. 

With all this evidence, then, in favour of the unity 
of the book, why, it may be asked, do some critics 
wish to split it up? The reason is of course to get 
rid of any contemporary evidence as to Miracles. 
The book as a whole records numerous miracles, and 
yet its marks of genuineness in some places are too 
strong to be denied. Accordingly, the We sections 
which have perhaps the stronger marks of genuineness, 
and certainly the fewer miracles, are alone allowed to — 
be authentic. Here, it is said, we have the original 
non-miraculous diary of one of St. Paul’s companions, 
which some writer of the second century published 
with many marvellous additions of his own, besides 
re-writing the whole in his own style. 

But this theory cannot possibly be accepted. It is, 
in the first place, zmprobable, because such a diary is not 
likely to have remained unknown for so many years, 
that a late writer could publish an ‘ improved’ edition 


* Acts 6.5; 8. 5-13, 26-40; 21. 10; Luke 1. 3. 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 359 


of it without anyone detecting the fraud. Next, it is 
from its own point of view inadequate, because, as a 
matter of fact, the We sections do contain some 
miracles ;1 while many of the others, such as the riot at 
Ephesus, bear equally strong marks of genuineness. 
While, lastly, it is opposed to all the evidence, because 
there is not only the universal testimony of antiquity 
-in favour of the unity of the book, but, as we have 
seen, the book itself bears strong marks of unity 
throughout. 

(C.) Irs AUTHORSHIP. 

Now, if we admit the accuracy and unity of the 
book, there is little difficulty in deciding on its author- 
ship. From the We sections we learn that the writer 
was a companion of St. Paul in many of his travels, 
including his voyage to Rome, where he apparently 
stayed with him two years. There is also another 
reason for thinking that the writer was a personal 
friend of St. Paul, and this is from his account of St. 
Paul's speeches. For we have numerous letters of this 
Apostle, and thus know his style and language well, 
and on examining the speeches attributed to him all 
through the Acts, we find they are thoroughly Pauline 
in character. In particular may be mentioned his 
speech at Athens, which so closely resembles the style 
of St. Paul, that even hostile critics have been forced 
to admit its genuineness, though it does not occur in 
the We sections. 

And yet, strange to say, the writer does not appear 
to have known St. Paul’s Epistles, at least there are 

1 Acts 16. 18, 26; 28. 6, 8-9. 


360 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHAP. xvI. 


no obvious quotations from them, and in his biography 
of St. Paul he never once alludes to his having written 
any letters at all. This latter circumstance alone 
points to the great antiquity of the book, and when 
combined with the former, it clearly shows that the 
writer’s acquaintance with St. Paul’s language was 
derived not from his letters, but from himself sein other 
words, that he was his intimate friend. 

But it is urged on the other side that some of these 
speeches also show traces of the writer’s own language. 
But what if they do? Would it not be only natural 
for a writer who heard St. Paul’s speeches, and after- 
wards wrote them down from short notes or memory, 
to have occasionally introduced an expression of his 
own ; more especially as the recorded speeches can only 
be abstracts of what was actually said? St. Paul, for 
instance, at Athens is not likely to have spoken for 
less than half an hour ; whereas his speech in the Acts - 
would not take three minutes.! And if anyone will 
try and reduce a half-hour’s speech to three minutes, he 
will see that it is almost impossible to give a connected 
and fair outline of the speech, without introducing some 
extra words. 

We also learn indirectly from the book itself that 
the writer was a medical man. The evidence for this 
is overwhelming, but as the fact is generally admitted, 
we need not discuss it at length. Suffice it to say, 
that 201 places have been counted in the Acts, and 
252 in the Third Gospel, where words and expressions 
occur which are specially, and many of them ex- 


1 -Acts.17, 22-31. 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 361 


- 


clusively, used by Greek medical writers, and which, 
with few exceptions, do not occur elsewhere in the New 
Testament.t For instance, we read of the many proofs 
of the resurrection ; the word translated proofs being 
frequently used by medical writers to express the in- 
fallible symptoms of a disease, in opposition to its mere 
signs, which may be doubtful, and they expressly give 
it this meaning. And we read of the restoration of all 
things ; the word translated restoration being the regular 
medical term for a complete recovery of body or limb.? 

From internal evidence, then, we conclude that the 
writer was an intimate friend of St. Paul and a medical 
man ; and from one of St. Paul’s Epistles we learn his 
name, Luke the beloved physician.2 In confirmation of 
this it may be mentioned that both this Epistle and 
that to Philemon, where St. Paul also names Luke as 
his companion, appear to have been written from 
Rome, when, as we know, the writer of the Acts was 
with him. And he seems to have remained with him 
to the last, only Luke is with me.4 And yet this beloved 
and ever-faithful friend of St. Paul is not once named in 
the Acts, which would be most unlikely unless he were 
the author himself ; while many other friends of St. 
Paul are mentioned, and in such a way as to show that 
they could not be the writer.® 

Moreover the authorship of the book (as well as that 
of the Third Gospel) must have been well known from 
the very beginning, for Theophilus to whom it was 


* Hobart’s Medical Language of St. Luke (1882) ; some of his 
examples are rather doubtful. 

@ Acts ¥.j3'; 3. 27. 3 Col. 4. 14; Philemon 24, — 

eee Lim, 4. 11. Br ActS 15. 22 920.4; 


362 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XVI. 


addressed was evidently a prominent convert, and he 
must have known from whom the book came (even if. 
for some reason this was not stated in the super- 
scription), and is not likely to have kept it secret. 
And therefore the universal belief of the Church in the 
second century, as witnessed to by Ireneus and the 
Muratorian canon, which always ascribed it to St. Luke, 
and never ascribed it to anyone else, is specially 
important ; and affords a strong additional argument in 
favour of his being the author. 

(D.) Its DATE. 

And the date of the book can also be fixed with 
tolerable certainty. It is implied in its abrupt ending. 
The last thing it narrates is St. Paul’s living at Rome, 
two years before his trial (A.D. 58—-60).! It says nothing 
about this trial, nor of St. Paul’s release, nor of his 
subsequent travels, nor of his second trial and martyr- 
dom (probably under Nero, A.D. 64) ; though had it 
been written after, these events, it could hardly have 
failed to record them, more especially as the martyr- 
dom of St. Peter and St. Paul, which, according to 
early authorities, occurred together at Rome, would 
have formed such a suitable conclusion for a work 
chiefly concerned with their labours. 

On the other hand, the abrupt ending yt, the book 
is at once accounted for if we assume that it was written 
at that time, about A.D. 60, by St. Luke, who did not 
relate anything further, because nothing further had 

1 The date previously given, a.D. 61-63, is now generally ad- 


mitted to be three years too late. Rackham’s Commentary on the 
Acts, 1901, p. Ixvii. 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 363 


then occurred. And it is obvious that these two years 
would not only have formed a most suitable period for 
its compilation, but that he is very likely to have sent 
it to his friend Theophilus just before the trial, perhaps 
somewhat hurriedly, not knowing whether it might not 
involve his own death, as well as that of St. Paul. 

And this would also account for the great prominence 
' given to the events of the immediately preceding years 
in chapters 20. to 28., which is quite unintelligible, 
unless the book was written soon afterwards. They 
were nothing like as important as the events of the 
next few years, as to which the writer says nothing. 
And why should he go through the earlier stages of 
St. Paul’s arrest and trial, so carefully, step by step, 
from Lysias to Felix, from Felix to Festus, and then 
_to Agrippa, and on to Rome ; and then when he comes 
to the crisis, and the Apostle is about to appear before 
Czesar, suddenly break off, without ever giving a hint 
as to which way it was decided ? Everyone must feel 
how tantalising it is; and how unlikely he is to have 
stopped here, if he could have gone on. And the fact 
that the journey to Rome itself, especially the ship- 
wreck, is described with such minute and graphic 
details, also supports the view that it must have been 
written down very soon afterwards. And then the 
great similarity of language throughout the book, to 
which we have already alluded, is in favour of its all 
having been written at the same time. 

Moreover the writer’s attitude towards the Roman 
Government affords another strong argument in favour 
_ of an early date. For the Roman judges and officials 


364 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVI. 


are always represented as treating the Christians with | 
fairness, and even kindness; and the writer leaves 
St. Paul appealing to Cesar, with every hope of a 
favourable verdict. There is no sign of bitterness or 
ill-feeling anywhere. And all this would have been 
most unlikely after the great persecution in A.D. 64 ; 
when, as we learn from the Book of Revelation (admit- 
ting its early date), the Christians regarded Rome with 
the utmost horror, as drunk with the blood of the martyrs. 

Compare the somewhat similar case of the Indian 
Mutiny. Can we imagine an Englishman in India 
writing soon after the Mutiny a history, say of Cawn- 
pore, up to 1854, and then closing it, without ever 
letting a hint fall that he was aware of the terrible 
tragedy which happened in 1857, or showing the 
slightest ill-feeling towards its perpetrators ? The only 
reasonable conclusion would be that such a history 
must have been written before the Mutiny. In the 
same way the Acts must have been written before 
Nero’s great persecution. 

And the same sort of argument is afforded by the 
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Had the book 
been written after this, it is strange that the writer 
should seem to be entirely unaware of it ; more especi- 
ally as it hadso close a bearing on the events described 
in the Acts, such as the Jewish law not being binding 
on Gentile Christians. And it is the more significant, 
because he records the prophecy of the event in his 
Gospel, but nowhere hints that the prophecy had ever 
been fulfilled. 

Linke 19.47: 


THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 365 


Many critics, it is true, who maintain a subsequent 
date, say that the writer intended to complete his 
history in a Third Volume. But though this would 
account for his not actually recording later events, it 
would not account for his writing as if ignorant of 
them ; nor would it account for his giving such undue 
prominence to the events in Chapters 20. to 28., and 
his tone of friendship towards the Roman authorities, 
to which we have just alluded. Moreover this Third 
Volume is a pure conjecture. No trace of it exists, nor 
is there any reference to it in early writers. 

It is also worth mentioning that though St. Luke 
speaks of the Cesars, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius, 
by name,’ and though he is so careful in other places 
always to give the names of the public men he alludes 
to, he never tells us who was the Cesar (Nero) that is 
referred to in the latter part of the Acts, and before 
whom St. Paul was going to be tried. How easily 
anyone writing in Nero’s reign might omit to do this 
scarcely needs pointing out. 

On the whole then there is very strong evidence in 
favour of the Acts of the Apostles having been written 
by St. Luke about a.p. 60; and this of course proves 
an earlier date for St. Luke’s Gospel. And this again 
proves a still earlier date for St. Mark’s Gospel, which 
is now generally admitted to be the source from 
which St. Luke got his portion of the so-called Triple 
Tradition. And it is very probable that St. Matthew's 
Gospel was also earlier than St. Luke’s. The evidence 


Lelie career Pee cts 1.28) 5) 18s 2. 
2 Acts 26. 32; 27. 24; 28. 19. 


=— "3 ‘ at 


oO > oe $ 1mm + : Wes 
4% < af = . + t a gi 
}Yy cP. 4 > aS : 
“<r : ~ $e T <2 2's m | ae 4 


366 - THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xvi. 


of the Acts then, while confirming our previous con- 


clusion that the Synoptic Gospels were certainly 
written before A.D. 70, enables us to add with some 
confidence (at least it seems so to the present writer) 
that they were also written before A.p. 60.1 It has of 
course no direct bearing on the date of St. John’s 
Gospel. 

+ This is a little earlier than most critics would admit, though 
some would of course place them earlier still; thus Canon Birks, 


who discusses the subject at great length, dates them all between 
A.D. 42-51 (Hore Evangelice, 1892 edit., pp. 259, 281, 293). 


CHAPTER XVII.} 


THAT THEREFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS 
PROBABLY TRUE. 


Importance of the Resurrection, the third day. 


(A.) THE NARRATIVES. 
Table of Christ’s appearances. 


(1.) Discrepancies. 

(2.) Omissions. 

(3.) Agreements. 

(4.) Signs of early date. 


(B.) THE WITNESSES. 


Now the value of all testimony depends on four questions 
concerning the witnesses, and in this case the denial of 
each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories. 


(1.) Their veracity. Did they speak the truth as far as 
they knew it? They had no motive for preaching the 
Resurrection unless they believed it, while their conduct 
and sufferings showed them to be thoroughly convinced 
of it ; so we may dismiss the Falsehood Theory. 

(2.) Their knowledge. Had they the means of knowing 
the truth ? Amply sufficient means were within their 
reach, and they were quite competent to use them ; so 
the Legend Theory must also be dismissed. 

(3.) Their investigation. Did they avail themselves of 
these means ?_ Possibly they did not, from their excited 
state of mind. This is the Vision Theory, which, how- 
‘ever, has enormous difficulties. 


1 This chapter can be obtained separately, having been reprinted 
by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, price 6d. 


367 


368 THE TRUTH OF, CHRISTIANITY. ©? cuart sane 


(4.) Their reasoning. Did they draw the right conclu- 
sion? Might not Christ’s appearances be explained by 
His not having died? This Swoon Theory has also 
enormous difficulties. 


(C.) CONCLUSION. 
The alleged difficulties of the Christian Theory. 


WE decided in the previous chapters that the Four 
Gospels, and also the Acts of the Apostles, were 
authentic ; that is to say, they were actually written 
by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed. 
And to these may be added the four great Epistles of 
St. Paul and the Revelation of St. John, which, as 
before said, are admitted to be genuine by critics of all 
schools. We have thus direct testimony as to the 
alleged teaching and miracles of Christ, that is to say, 
the testimony of contemporaries, some of whom must 
have known Him well. St. Matthew and St. John were © 
two of His Apostles ; St. Mark and St. Luke had ex- 
ceptionally good means of knowing the truth, and 
may perhaps have had some slight knowledge of 
Christ themselves; as had also St. Paul.} 

We have now to consider the value of their testimony, 
more especially as to the Resurrection of Christ, which 
fact, either real or supposed, was the foundation of 
Christianity. This is plain not only from the Gospels, 
but still more from the Acts, where we have numerous 
short speeches by the Apostles, given under various 
circumstances, and to various audiences, including 
Jewish Councillors, Greek philosophers, and Roman 
governors. And in nearly all of them the Resurrection 
of Christ is not only positively asserted, but is empha- 

1 2 Cor. 5. 16. 


THE RESURRECTION. 369 


sised as a fact established by indisputable evidence 
and as being the foundation of Christianity.1 It is 
even said that it was the special duty of an apostle 
to bear witness to it; and St. Paul seems to have 
been aware of this, since, in maintaining his apostle- 
ship, he is careful to show that he was thus qualified, 
and for himself he makes it the sine qué non of his teach- 
ing.” It is certain, then, that the first preachers of 
Christianity preached the Resurrection of Christ. 

And it is equally certain that they preached that it 
occurred on the third day, counting from the Cruci- 
fixion.? This also is stated not only in the Gospels, 
but by St. Paul; who in one place bases his whole 
argument on the fact that the Body of Christ (unlike 
that of David) saw no corruption, a point also alluded 
to by St. Peter, and implying a Resurrection in a few 
days.4 While if further evidence is required, the 
_ establishment of the first day of the week as the Lord’s 
Day—the Christian Sunday—seems to put the matter 
beyond dispute. We may say then with confidence, 


that wherever the Resurrection was believed, the fact 


that it occurred on the third day—the day on which 
they found the Tomb empty, and saw (or thought they 
saw) His first appearances—was believed also. The 
two invariably went together. But was this belief 


Peeren yy 24 823..°05 +. 4976. Bs, Be eee en A Ors tp LO.e gO 5k eee eee 
26.°6,23. 

Braacray 3 22.>-1 Cor. @ 1 31 B. 12-10, 

3 Sometimes described as after three days, but that the two ex- 
pressions are meant to be synonymous is clear from Matt. 27. 63-64, 
where Christ’s saying that He would rise again after three days is 
given as the reason for guarding the sepulchre until the third day. 

e-1 Cor. 15. 4; ‘Acts 13. 35-37; 2. 31. 


24 


370 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


‘justified ? This is the question we have to consider ; 


and we will first examine the narratives of the Resurrec- | 


tion, and-then the testimony of its first witnesses. 

(A.) THE NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 

Now we have five different accounts of the Resurrec- 
tion ; and these are so thoroughly independent that 
not one of them can be regarded as the source of any 
of the others. Little stress, however, can be laid on 
St. Mark’s account, as the genuineness of the last verses 
is doubtful ; but it anyhow represents a very early 
Christian belief, Aristion being sometimes named as 
the author. On the other hand, St. Paul’s account, 
which is perhaps the strongest, is universally allowed 
to have been written within thirty years of the event ; 
the most probable date for which is A.D. 29, and for the 
Epistle A.D. 54. And it should be noticed that St. Paul 
expressly reminds the Corinthians that what he here 
relates concerning the Resurrection is what he preached 


to them on his first visit (about A.D. 49), and that as 


they had received it from him, so he had himself 
vecevved it from others at a still earlier date. 

And we can even fix this date approximately, for two 
of the appearances he records are to St. Peter and 
St. James ; and he happens-to mention elsewhere that 
these were the two Apostles he met at Jerusalem, 
three years after his conversion (A.D. 35, or earlier) ;1 
so he doubtless heard the whole account then, even if 


he had not heard it before.* And this was certainly — 


within ten years—probably within seven years—of the 


1 Harnack dates it A.D. 30, a year after the Crucifixion. 
® Gal. 1. 19. 


THE RESURRECTION. 371 


Crucifixion. More ancient testimony than this can 
scarcely be desired. And if anything could add to 
its importance it would be St. Paul’s own declaration 
that in this respect his teaching was the same as that 
of the original Apostles : Whether then it be I or they, so 
we preach and so ye believed. 

We need not quote the various accounts here, but 
the table given on p. 372 exhibits them in a con- 
venient form for reference. 

Altogether Christ seems to have been seen on 
thirteen different occasions, though there may have 
been others, which are not recorded (they are perhaps 
hinted at in Acts 1. 3; 13. 31; John 20. 30}e% Seis 
doubtful however if (viii.) and (ix.) in the following list 
are separate appearances, as St. Matthew says that when 
the Eleven saw him, they worshipped Him, but some 
_ doubted ; which probably means that some others who 
were present (7.¢c., some of the five hundred) doubted 
at first if it was really He, owing to His being some way 
off, as it was before He came to them. Indeed if there 
were only eleven present, they need scarcely have gone 
_ to a mountain to meet Christ, a room would have been 
large enough. But if there were several hundred, col- 
lected from the surrounding villages, an open hill 
(possibly the one where Christ had so often taught 
before) would be a convenient meeting-place. 

On the other hand, the appearance to the five hun- 
dred must have been in Galilee, as there were not so 
many disciples in Jerusalem,? and it must have been 
by appointment, as they could hardly have come to- 

er Corel iret i : 2-Acts li rs: 


24—2 


Re SIRS, Sm Seen ae SO Rn Nader ONT ga Tee oi an eT ies Ree ah ie anata tne 


a 
= 7 ie 


372 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cnar. xvm. a 


TABLE OF CHRIST’S APPEARANCES. 


1 Cor. Matt. Mark Luke. John. 
Empty tomb visited | 1a tates) (oka Ted alee 
by women. ofl. 7 28. 1-8 |16. 1-8 \ 22-23 |\f 20. 1-2 

And by Apostles . = na Ay 12, 24 3-10 
Then Christ was seen 

by (in or neay Jeru- 

salem) — 

(i) St. Mary Mag-) 9-11 os ee 

dalene . ee 

(ii.) Several women % g-10 55 As 7 

Gly. St Peter. 2. vs ek 24 ds f 34. 


(iv.) Cleopas and 
another, per- 
haps St. Luke, 
at Emmaus 


bv.) whe = 


12-13 | 13-35 


and others 


(less 5 .- 14 36-43 19-25 
= Thomas 
(vi.) The eee 
(with 26-29 
Thomas) 
In Galilee— : 
(vii.) Seven Apostles | 
at Ses -oT 21. I-23 
p. Tiberias ._ 
(vili.) Berarartc a 16-20 | 1, 15-18 
(ix.) Over 500 persons 6 ze 
(eayomt- JOMes-.. 4 7 } 
~ 
A 
Back at Jervusalem— 
(xi.) The Apostles at) nee | 
Jerdsalems fs > ** . “4 44-49 | 1. 4-5 
(xii.) The Apostles 
and others at 7 19-20 50-53 |1. 6-11, 22 
Bethany . 
Gall} st. Paul > - 2 Ee ae oe eae 9, 3-9 


. 


THE RESURRECTION. 373 


gether by accident ; and they are not likely to have come 
together at all without the Apostles having collected 
them ; and all this is an additional reason for identifying 
it with that recorded by St. Matthew. 

It will next be noticed that the appearances form 
three groups. First a group in or near Jerusalem, 
which was chiefly to the Twelve Apostles, and extended 
over eight days. Secondly a group in Galilee, the most 
important being that to the five hundred brethren, 
which was a sort of farewell to His Galilean disciples. 
This was accompanied, or just preceded, by the 
appearance to the Apostles ; and probably preceded a 
few days by that on the Lake, when Christ may have 
pointed out the mountain where He would appear, 
and told them when to collect the brethren. And 
thirdly a group back again at Jerusalem, chiefly to the 
Twelve, but including others,! and ending with the 
Ascension, or farewell to His Jerusalem disciples. And 
though this double farewell is sometimes thought to be 
a difficulty, yet as Christ’s Resurrection was meant to 
be the proof of His mission, it seems only natural that 
He should have appeared again to all His disciples, and 
have taken leave of them, both those in Galilee, and 
those at Jerusalem, the Apostles themselves being of 
course present on each occasion. 

Passing on now to examine the narratives more 
closely, the first thing that strikes one is that they 
contain frequent discrepancies and omissions, as well 
as of course numerous agreements ; while another point, 
equally important, but not equally obvious, is that they 

*"Acts:1: 22. 


374 THE TRUTH OF ‘CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


also contain several signs of early date; so we will 
consider these in turn. 

(1.) Discrepancies. | 

Now that there is a difficulty in reconciling the 
accounts, everyone must admit, but this seems to be 
chiefly due to the Evangelists (especially St. Mark and 
St. Luke) recording separate appearances as if they 
were continuous. But they do much the same in the 
rest of their Gospels, often recording separate sayings 
of Christ as if they were one discourse; and even in 
closely-connected passages a break has sometimes to be 
assumed. Take for instance :—Then the master of the 
house said to his servant, Go out quickly, etc. And the 
servant said, Lord what thou didst command ts done 
These words seem to follow each other immeadtately ,; but 
yet it is obvious that there was an interval between 
them. And the common expression, And behold, which 
occurs in Matt. 24. 9 (see R.V.), and which certainly 
seems to imply a Close connection, need not really do 
so, from the way in which it is used elsewhere.? 

And therefore it is quite possible for the closing 
verses of St. Mark and St. Luke to contain words spoken 
on different occasions. And St. Luke himself implies 
that they do, for though in his Gospel he describes the 
appearances as if they all occurred in a few hours 
(which, however, would place the Ascension in the 
middle of the night, which is scarcely probable), yet 
in the Acts he says there were forty days between them. 


He seems to have thought it unnecessary in his Gospel 


to explain that they were at different times; andif the 
1 Luke 14, 21-22. 2 E.g., Matt. 2..1 5-15, 22:3 192.6. 


ee - 


THE RESURRECTION. 3/5 


other Evangelists did the same, it would account for 
most, though not all, of the discrepancies between 
them. 

These discrepancies, however, are often much ex- 
aggerated. Take for instance No. (v.) in the previous 
list. St. Luke and St. John evidently refer to the same 
occasion, as it was on the evening of the Resurrection 
day ; and yet one says the Apostles were terrified, and 
thought they saw a spirit ; while the other says they 
were glad. Can both be true? Certainly they can, if 
we assume (as is most natural) that the Apostles were 
at first terrified, and thought they saw a spirit ; but 
were afterwards glad, when on Christ’s showing them 
His hands and side, they were at last convinced 
that it was really Himself. And He may then have 
upbraided them for their unbelief as recorded by 
St. Mark. 

And it is surprising to find how slight remarks in the 
narratives themselves sometimes help to reconcile 
them. Thus St. John writes as if Mary Magdalene 
alone came to the Tomb, and rushed off without looking 
in ; but her subsequent words, we know not where they 
have laid Him, show that there were others with her, 
and that they had looked in and found the Body gone, 
which agrees with the other Gospels. Later on, of 
course, she was alone, but then she uses the words. J 
know not.1 And St. Luke’s calling the heavenly 
visitors men in one verse and angels in another, explains 
how both terms might be used by the other Evangelists.” 

A more important difficulty is caused by Christ’s 

1, John, 205 1,221 3. 2 Luke 24. 4, 23. 


376 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


command to the women, that they and the Apostles 
were to proceed to Galilee to meet Him, when, as He 
knew, He was going to appear to them in Jerusalem the 


same day. The most probable explanation is that the 


interview in Galilee was the one tutended all along, in 
fact we are definitely told so.t. But when the women, 
in consequence of the Angel’s message, and after they 
had recovered from their fright (which at first made 
them run away and say nothing to anyone)? went and 
told the Apostles to go there, they were disbelieved.® 
This naturally reacted on the women, who also began 
to doubt, and returned to the sepulchre to make 
further inquiries, none of them having the slightest 
intention of proceeding to Galilee. 

Under these circumstances, something more was 
necessary, so Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene, 
and then to her with the other Mary, when He told 
them Himself to warn the Apostles to proceed to 
Galilee, which they again did, and were again dis- 
believed. Then He appeared to the two disciples who 
had gone off to Emmaus, and when they came back, 
and told the rest, they were also at first disbelteved.® 

After this there was nothing for it, but for Christ to 
appear to the Apostles Himself, and convince them 
personally ; which He did, when most of them were 
assembled together the same evening. And He may 
then have told them to remain in Jerusalem, till they 
were all convinced, as they could scarcely have been 
expected to collect the five hundred brethren for the 

1 Mark 14. 28. 2 Mark 16. 8. 3 Luke 24, 11, 
4 Mark 16. 11, 5 Mark 16, 13. 


THE RESURRECTION. ey 9 hes 


meeting in Galilee, so long as they kept disputing 
among themselves, as to whether He had really risen. 
And it was thus another week before the last sceptic 


(St. Thomas) was convinced, and they finally started 


for Galilee. These discrepancies then are not nearly 
so serious as is commonly supposed. 

(2.) Omissions. 

With regard to the omissions, none of our lists are at 


“all complete, and this is often thought to be a diffi- 


culty. But as far as the Gospels are concerned, the 
writers nowhere profess to give a complete list of 
Christ’s appearances, any more than of His parables, 
or His miracles; they only record selected instances ; 
and not knowing the circumstances under which they 
wrote, it is often difficult for us to justify their selection. 
Why, for instance, should only one Gospel (the Third) 
record such a beautiful parable as that of the Prodigal 
Son; or only one (the Fourth) such a striking miracle 
as that of the raising of Lazarus ? 

In the present case, however, their choice seems to 


be quite intelligible. Thus St. Matthew closes his 


Gospel, which is concerned chiefly with the Galilean 
ministry, with the appearance of Christ on the moun- 
tain in Galilee ; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned 
with the Judean ministry, ended his (before the last 
chapter was added) with some of the appearances in 
Jerusalem; while St. Luke, who was more of an > 
historian, and wrote everything 7” order,’ though he 
describes most in detail the appearance to the two 
disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if he was 
1 Luke 1. 3. 


378 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. ~ cHap. xvu. 


one of them), is yet careful to carry his narrative right 
on to the Ascension. ; 

And therefore, though they only record certain 
appearances, they may have known of the others ; and 
there can be little doubt that they did. St. John, for 
instance, though he does not record the Ascension, 
must certainly have known of it, as he refers to it 
twice in his own Gospel, in the words, if ye should 
behold the Son of Man ascending, and I ascend unto my 
lather ; the former passage clearly showing that it was 
to be a visible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see 
it. And St. Luke, though he does not record an 
appearance to St. Peter, incidentally alludes to it.! 

On the other hand, St. Paul’s list certainly looks as 


if it was meant to be complete ; and this is no doubt — 


areal difficulty. Surely, it is said, if the other appear- 
ances had occurred, or were even supposed to have 
occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have heard 
of them ; and if he had heard of them, he would have 
mentioned them, as he was evidently trying to make 
out as strong a case as he could. He might perhaps 
have omitted the appearances to women, as their 
evidence was not considered of much value at the 
time, and they were not witnesses of the Resurrection, 
in the sense he alludes to (¢.e., persons who went about 
preaching it) ;* but why should he have omitted the rest? 

There is however a fairly good explanation. The 
appearances it will be remembered form three groups. 
Now St. Paul mentions two individual appearances, 
those to St. Peter and St. James ; and this was doubt- 


* John 6. 62; 20. 17; Luke 24. 34. 2 1 Cor. 15. 14-15. 


3 : _ 


__— = ee 
‘ . 


THE RESURRECTION. 379 


less because he had had such vivid accounts of them 
from the men themselves, who it will be remembered 
were the two Apostles he first met at Jerusalem ; for 
we may be sure if they had not told him, he would not 
have accepted it from anyone else. But he seems to 


refer to the others in these groups, first to the Twelve 


(at Jerusalem), then to the five hundred brethren (in 
Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently meaning 
more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But 
by so doing, he does not limit it to only one appearance 
in each group. In the same way a man might say 
that on returning to England he saw first his parents, 
then his brothers, then his cousins; though he had 
seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers 
for only a few hours, and his cousins for several 
successive days. 

And the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in 
the Acts,! expressly says that Christ was seen for many 
days at Jerusalem, strongly confirms this view ; that 
in his Epistle he is mentioning the appearances by 
groups, rather than every single one; wishing to 
emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ, 
rather than the number of times they had seen Him ; 
and if so it does away with the difficulty. 

(3.) Agreements. 

Against these discrepancies and omissions moreover, 
must be set the fact of substantial agreement ; for all 
the more important points—the third day, the empty 
tomb, the first appearance being in Jerusalem, and the 
slowness of belief on the part of some of the disciples— 

t Acts 13; 31. 


3280 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


are vouched for by every Evangelist. And further they 
all agree in not giving (what imaginary accounts might 
well have contained) any description of the Resurrection 
itself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies, or any 
information as to the other world: which last would 
have been so eagerly welcomed, and could have been 
so easily invented. 

And the order in which the appearances are placed 
is also the same in every account, that to St. Mary 
Magdalene for instance (wherever it occurs) being 
always placed first, that to St. Peter next, that to 
-Cleopas next, then that to the Twelve, etc. And this 
is the more remarkable because the narratives are so 
obviously independent, and the order is not at all a 
likely one. Writers of fiction, for instance, would 
never have made Christ first appear to so little known 
a person as Mary Magdalene, rather than to His Mother 
or His Apostles. 

Moreover the narratives often help to explain one 
another in details. Thus, to take a few examples, 
St. Luke says that Peter was the disciple who ran to the 
Tomb on hearing of the Angel’s message, without how- 
ever giving any reason why he should have been the 
one to go. But St. Mark, though he does not mention 
the visit of Peter, records that the message had been 


specially addressed to him ; and this of course explains — 


his going. St. Luke, it may be added, in the subse- 
quent words, certain of them that were with us, implies 
that at least one other disciple went with him, which 
agrees with St. John. 


1 Luke 24. 24. 


THE RESURRECTION. 381 


Again St. Matthew narrates that when Christ ap- 
peared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, He 
was at once recognised, held by the feet, and wor- 
shipped; and they do not seem to have been at all sur- 
prised at meeting Him near the Tomb, in spite of the 
Angel’s message that they should go to Galilee to see 
Him. Evidently something must have occurred be- 
tween, making a break in the narrative after v. 8, 
which (as before said) is quite possible. And from the 
other Evangelists we learn what this was. For St. John 
describes an appearance to Mary Magdalene alone, 
when she was rebuked for wishing to touch Him, 
apparently in the old familiar way, with the mere 
human title of Rabbi, and without any act of reverence ; 
and St. Mark says this was the first appearance. If 
then a few minutes later, she, in company with the 
other Mary, saw Christ again, it would quite account 
for their absence of surprise at meeting Him, and also 
for their altered behaviour in prostrating themselves 
to the ground, and being in consequence permitted to 
hold Him by the feet, and worship Him. 

Once more St. Luke says that when Christ appeared 
to the Apostles, He was mistaken for a spirit ; but he 
gives no reason for this, and it was apparently the only 
occasion on which it occurred. St. John however, 
though he does not mention the incident, fully explains 
it ; for he says that the doors were shut for fear of the 
Jews; and obviously if Christ suddenly appeared 
within closed doors, it would account for their thinking 
that He must be a spirit. On the other hand, St. John 
speaks of Christ’s showing them His hands and side 


382 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cmap. xvi. 


though without giving any reason for this, but St. 
Luke’s. statement that they at first took Him for a 
spirit ; and that He did this to convince them of His 
identity, quite accounts for it ; so each of the narratives 
helps to explain the other. 

Again St. Mark (or perhaps Aristion) records Christ 
as saying, after His command to preach the Gospel to 
all the world, ‘ He that believeth and is baptised shall 
be saved,’ though without any previous reference to 
baptism. But St. Matthew says the command was 
not only to make disciples of all nations, but to baptise 
them as well, and this of course explains the other 
passage, though curiously enough St. Matthew himself 
does not refer to it. 

And then as to the appearance to the five hundred 
brethren recorded by St. Paul. None of the Evange- 
lists mention this, but it explains a good deal that they 
do mention. Thus St. John alludes to the Apostles 
being in Galilee, instead of (as we should have expected) 
staying in Jerusalem, but he gives no hint as to why 
they went there. Nor do St. Matthew and St. Mark, 
who say Christ told them to go there, give any hint as 
to why He told them ; but this appearance to the five 
hundred, who had to be collected in Galilee, explains 
everything. It also accounts for St. Luke’s omission 
of Galilee among the places where the Apostles them- 
selves had to preach the Resurrection ; as there were so 
many witnesses there already.1 

Now of course too much stress must not be laid on 
small details like these, but still the fact that such 

1 Acts 1. 8, 


Ts ae 


THE RESURRECTION. 383 


short accounts should explain one another in so many 
ways is a distinct evidence of truthfulness. Legendary 
accounts of fictitious events would not be likely to 
do so. 

(4.) Signs of early date. 

Lastly, it is interesting to note that these accounts, 
especially those in the Synoptics, bear signs of an 
extremely early, if not a contemporary date. Thus 
St. Peter is still called by his old name of Simon, and it 
is the last occasion when that name is used, without 
explaining to whom it refers; St. Paul, some years 
later, though alluding to this same appearance, calling 
him by what was then his usual name of Cephas or 
Peter. Whilst St. John, writing many years after- 
wards, though he is equally accurate as to Simon being 
the name in use at the time, thinks it necessary to 
explain who was meant by it (‘ Jesus saith to Simon 
Peter, Simon son of John, lovest thou Me ?’).! 

Again, the Apostles are represented as still expecting 
the kingdom of Israel to be restored ; which was an 
error on their part, that could scarcely have been worth 
inventing after the Ascension.? 

Moreover (and this is very significant) they are 
spoken of as the Eleven, though they could only have 
had this title for just these few weeks.* And the fact 
of their having had it seems to have been soon for- 
gotten: for St. Paul even when. alluding to this very 
time prefers to call them by the familiar title of the 
Twelve, which was equally correct, as we are specially 


1 Luke 24. 34; John.21. 1s. 4 Acts 1.6; Luke24. ar, 
3 Matt. 28. 16; Mark 16. 14 ; Luke 24. 9, 33. 


384 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


told that St. Matthias, who was afterwards elected as 
the twelfth, had been with them all along. And there- | 
fore the use of the former term in the Synoptic Gospels 
seems to show that the original narratives were either 
written at the time, or at least by men who took part 
in those momentous events, and from whose memories 
the terms then in use (though only for a few weeks), 
were not easily effaced. 

And for all we know the account in the Fourth Gospel 
(though not published till long afterwards) may also 
have been written down at the time; and it certainly 
bears strong marks of truthfulness. In particular may 
be mentioned the extremely graphic way in which some 
of the events are described, such as the visit of the 
disciples to the empty Tomb, and the appearance by 
the sea of Tiberias. It is difficult to believe that the 
writer was not present himself on each occasion, being 
of course the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved. 
And the subsequent reference to the manner of St. 
Peter’s death is so very obscure, that it could hardly 
have been composed as a pretended prophecy after the 
event. ; 

Again, the kind of Resurrection asserted (though no 
doubt presenting great difficulties) is strongly suggestive 
of a contemporary date. It was not as said before 
(Chapter XIII.), a resuscitation of Christ’s natural 
body (as in the case of Lazarus, etc.), but His rising 
again in a body which combined material and spiritual 
properties in a remarkable manner. And there was 
nothing in the Old Testament, or anywhere else, to 


 Acgiadiaz >: wCerrlass: 


THE RESURRECTION. 385 


suggest such a Resurrection as this ; it was quite unique. 
Indeed the combination of these properties is so 
extremely puzzling, that it is hard to see how anything 
but actual experience (or what they believed to be 
such) could ever have induced men to record it. 

And the fact of the narratives not reproducing 
St. Paul’s list of appearances, or making any attempt 
to agree with it, is another strong argument in favour 
of their early date. For had they been written after 
his Epistle got into circulation, they are not likely to 
have disregarded it in so important a matter ; unless 
of course they were written by men, like St. John, 
whose authority no one would question. 

Lastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonis- 
ing the narratives, or avoiding the apparent dis- 
crepancies between them, also points to their extreme 
antiquity. The writers indeed seem to narrate just 
what they believed to have happened, often mentioning 
the most trivial circumstances, and without ever 
attempting to meet difficulties or objections. And 
though such disjointed accounts might well have been 
written by the actual witnesses of a stupendous 
miracle, they are not such as would have been deliber- 
ately invented ; nor are they like the embodiment of 
subsequent legends and myths. In short these narra- 
tives appear throughout to be thoroughly trustworthy. 

(B.) THE WITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION. 

We pass on now from the narrative of the Resur- 
rection to consider the testimony of its fzrst Witnesses, 
that is to say of those persons who saw, or said they saw, 
Christ alive after His Crucifixion. This will include 


25 


386 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. xvit. © 


the twelve Apostles, and over 500 other Christians, 
most of whom St. Paul declares were still alive when he 
wrote, and evidently able to confirm what he said. And 
before discussing in detail the value of their testimony, 
it may be well to glance at certain general rules in 
regard to all testimony. If, then, a person plainly 
asserts that an event took place, before we believe 
that it did take place, we must inquire first as to 
his Veracity : did he speak the truth as far as he knew 
it? Next as to his Knowledge: had he the means of 
knowing the truth? Next as to his Investigation : 
did he avail himself of those means? And lastly, 
as to his Reasoning: did he draw the right con- 
clusion ? 

The following example will show the sense in which 
these terms are used. Suppose a person said that he 
went to London yesterday. Usually his veracity only 
need be determined. But now suppose he were blind, 
then we should have to assure ourselves of his know- 
ledge : had he the means of knowing whether the place 
was London or not? And granting that he had such 
means—as, for instance, if trustworthy friends accom- 
panied him—we might still have to inquire as to his 
investigation : did he avail himself of those means ? 
Possibly he felt sure it was London, and never asked 
his friends. Or again, suppose the person was a child ; 
then his reasoning must be determined : was he suffi- 
ciently educated to draw the right conclusion from 
what he saw and heard ? 

And it should be noticed that all possible ways of 
denying the truth of a statement can be brought under 


THE RESURRECTION. 387 


one or other of these heads. For if a man’s statement 
is not true, it must be either :-— 


Intentionally false . , ; : ; .  =want of Veracity. 


or of knowing the = want of Knowledge. 


had not the means 
truth 


Unintentionally or 
false, in which4 


did not use| =want of Investiga- 
case he either 


had the ea are J arith 


and either ) id 
used them 


=want of Reasoning. 
wrongly } 4 


« 


From this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man’s 
statement without disputing either his veracity, know- 
ledge, investigation, or reasoning, is very like denying 
that one given angle is greater than another without 
disputing that it is neither equal to it nor less than 
it. _We have now to apply these general rules to the 
testimony in favour of the Resurrection of Christ. 
And, as we shall see, the denial of these four points 
corresponds to the four chief alternative theories. 

(1.) The Veracity of the witnesses. 

_ Now, that the first witnesses all asserted that Christ 
rose from the dead and appeared to them is, as we have 
seen, indisputable ; so obviously the first question is as 
to their veracity : did they really believe this them- 
selves? To deny this would be to adopt the Falsehood 
Theory, which is that they were deliberate impostors, 
who, knowing and believing that their Master did not 
rise from the dead, yet spent their whole lives in trying 
to persuade people that He did. And, as we shall see, 
25—2 


388 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. xvii. 


their motives, their conduct, and especially their 
sufferings, are all strongly opposed to such a theory. 

And first as to their motives. Had they any interest 
in asserting that Christ rose from the dead unless they 
really believed it ? Merely to say that they could have 
had no interest, would be to understate the argument, 
for every motive told the other way. They were a 
mere handful of men, so few or so faint-hearted that 
they could not prevent their Master being crucified. 
What chance was there then of persuading the world 
that He had risen from the dead, and why should they 
have embarked on such a hopeless scheme ? Nothing 
but the most firm conviction of their Lord’s Resurrec- 
tion, and therefore of supernatural assistance, would 
ever have induced men to have ventured on it. If 
they believed the Resurrection to be true, then, and 
only then, would they have had any motive whatever 
for preaching it. While, then, it is plain that the 
Apostles were not unbiassed witnesses, in the sense of 
witnesses who had no personal interest in the matter>. 
it is equally plain that their evidence is the more 
valuable on this account, as all their interest was the 
other way. 

Next as to their conduct, did this show that they 
really believed what they preached? And here also 
the evidence is overwhelming. It is admitted by 
everyone that when their Master was crucified His 
followers were filled with gloom and despair. This 
was only natural. But in a few days this sorrow was 
changed to intense joy and confidence. They preached 
the Resurrection in the very place where He was 


THE RESURRECTION. 389 


crucified, and boldly went forth to convert the world 
in His name. It is clear that before such a mar- 
vellous change could take place they must at least 
have thought they had, what St. Luke asserts they 
actually did have, many proofs of the Resurrection. 
To them, at all events, the evidence must have seemed 
conclusive, or Christianity would have perished on 
_ Calvary. 

_ Moreover, in preaching such an extraordinary fact, 
especially in cultured cities like Rome and Corinth, the 
first witnesses would have been subjected to more than 
usual cross-examination. Some at least in every city 
would have used all possible means of finding out the 
truth, and impostors could hardly have stood, or with- 
stood, such an inquiry. And yet St. Paul’s Epistles 
prove that within thirty years the Resurrection was 
believed by numbers of men in these distant cities. 
And what is very important, it was believed by educated 
men, for his method of reasoning, especially in his 
Epistle to the Romans, shows that he thought his 
readers quite able to follow a difficult argument. 

But even this is not all, for the conduct of the first 
witnesses in preaching the new religion exposed them 
to lifelong suffering and persecution. And this is very 

important, since voluntary suffering in any form, but 

especially in its extreme form of martyrdom, seems 

conclusive as to a man’s veracity. Persons do not 

suffer for what they believe to be false; they must 

have believed it to be true, though this does not of 

course prove that it actually was true. And here is 
ee Acts +1. 37: 


390 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


the answer to the common objection, that since all 
religions have had their martyrs, this kind of evidence » 
proves nothing. On the contrary, it does prove some- 
thing, though it does not prove everything. It does 
not prove that what the man died for was true, but it 
does prove that he believed it to be true. It is there- 
fore a conclusive test as to his veracity. | 

What evidence have we, then, that the first witnesses 
suffered for the truth of what they preached? The 
evidence is complete and overwhelming, both from the 
Gospels, the Acts, and St. Paul’s Epistles. We need 
only refer to these latter, as their genuineness is un- 
disputed. St. Paul then, in one place, gives a list of 
the actual sufferings he had undergone ; he alludes to 
them in numerous other places, and as if they were 
the common lot of all Christians at the time ; and in 
one passage he expressly includes the other Apostles 
with himself in the long list of sufferings he describes, 
which he says had made them a spectacle to the whole 
world. While he elsewhere alludes to the sufferings 
of the Christians at a still earlier time, for he assures 
us that he himself before his conversion persecuted 
the Church beyond measure, and made havoc of it. 

And, if further evidence is required, the Epistle of 
Clement of Rome, admittedly genuine, and written 
about A.D. 96, bears witness to the sufferings and mar- 
tyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul, probably under 
Nero, A.D. 64; and Tacitus also records the cruel 
persecution the Christians then endured.? 


1 Matt. 10.17; Mark 13. 9; Luke 21. 12: John 16. 2. 
2 E.g., 2 Cor. 11. 24-27; Rom. 8. 35; 1 Cor. 4. 9-13; Gal. lL. 13. 
3. Tac. Annals, Bk. xv., ch. 44. 


THE RESURRECTION. 391 


There can be thus no doubt as to the constant 
sufferings of the first witnesses. And it is equally 
certain that men do not choose a life of suffering 
except upon conviction. The men, therefore, who did 
this must have believed their religion to be true, and 
this always included the Resurrection of Christ as a 
fundamental part. In short, their conduct is alone 
sufficient to prove their veracity, for impostors would 
not have behaved as they behaved. We conclude 
therefore that when they asserted that Christ rose from 
the dead, they were asserting what they honestly 
believed, whether rightly or wrongly, to be true. 

And it should be noticed, as this belief was due, not 
to any a priori reasoning, but resulted simply from the 
witnesses believing that they actually saw Christ 
alive after His death, we must further conclude that 
they honestly believed in the appearances of Christ 
as recorded by themselves in the New Testament ; 
in other words, these accounts are not intentionally 
false. 

So much for the veracity of the witnesses. It is not, 
as arule, denied by modern opponents of the Resurrec- 
tion ; but in early times, when men ought to have 
known best, it was evidently thought to be the only 
possible alternative. St. Paul declares emphatically 
that unless Christ had risen, he and the other Apostles 
were false witnesses, in plain words liars.1 That was 
the only choice. They were either saying what they 
knew to be true, or what they knew to be false. And 
the idea of there being some mistake about it, due to 


Seon b..15; 


392 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


visions, or swoons, or anything else, never seems to 
have occurred to anyone. 

(2.) The Knowledge of the witnesses. 

We pass on now to their knowledge: had they the 
means of knowing whether Christ rose from the dead ? 
To deny this would be to adopt the Legend Theory, 
which is that our Gospels are not authentic, but merely 
record subsequent legends, and therefore we cannot say 
whether the first witnesses had or had not the means 
of knowing the truth. But this is most uniikely, for 
Christianity spread with great rapidity, both in Italy> 
Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere; and it is hard to 
see how any later and legendary account of Christ's 
life should have been accepted by all these scattered 
Christian communities, if it differed materially from 
what they had heard at the first. While if we admit 
the authenticity of our Gospels, and the veracity of » 
their writers, (both of which have been admitted,) the 
Legend Theory is out of the question. 

They asserted, it will be remembered, that Christ’s 
Body, not His Spirit, appeared to them after the 
crucifixion ; and from their own accounts it is clear 
that they had ample means of finding out if this was 
true. Whether they used these means, and actually 
did find out, is, of course, another question ; but as 
to sufficient means being available, and their being 
quite competent to use them if they liked, there 
can be no doubt whatever. As has been well said, it 
was not one person, but many who saw Him; they 
saw Him not only separately, but together ; not only 
for a moment, but for a long time ; not only by night, 


THE RESURRECTION. 393 


but by day ; not only at a distance, but near ; not only 
once, but several times ; and they not only saw Him, 
but touched Him, walked with Him, conversed with 
Him, spoke to Him, heard Him answer, ate with Him, 
and examined His Body to satisfy their doubts. In 
fact, according to their own accounts, Christ seems to 
have convinced them in every way in which conviction 
was possible that He had risen from the dead. 

And even if we deny the authenticity of the Gospels 
the Legend Theory is still untenable. For St. Paul 
mentions several of the appearances, and as this was 
within a few years of the events, there was no time 
for the growth of legends. Nor was there any chance 
of the accounts being altered (as so often happens) 
in passing through a number of lips; for St. Paul, as 
we have shown, heard of the appearances direct from 
those who saw them ; and if so, it matters little whether 
his Epistle was written ten years, or twenty years after- 
wards. And though he does not give any of the 
details there, he must certainly have done so in his 
preaching ; and no one can doubt that they were of the 
same kind, as those recorded in the Gospels. Moreover, 
being an educated man, he is not likely to have been 
taken in by imposture, while his language implies that 
he had carefully investigated the fact, and was evidently 
well aware of the difficulty it involved; and of the 
great responsibility of asserting it if untrue. His 
testimony is thus very valuable from every point of 
view, and is absolutely fatal to the Legend Theory. 

(3.) The Investigation of the witnesses. 

By the investigation of a witness is meant, as before 


394 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


explained, his availing himself of the means he had of 
ascertaining the truth or otherwise of what he stated. 
And in the present case everything was in favour of the 
witnesses doing this. For the Resurrection of Christ 
was an event of supreme importance to the witnesses 
themselves, who were prepared to risk their lives for it ; 
while its truth or otherwise could easily have been 
ascertained, and they had ample means of doing so. 
If, then, we deny their investigation, it must be because 
of their supposed state of mind, their enthusiasm, or 
their excitement, or something of that kind. 

This would be to adopt what is called the Vision 
Theory, which is that the Apostles so expected their 
Lord to appear to them after His death, and kept so 
dwelling on the thought of Him, as though unseen, yet 
perhaps very near to them, that after a time they 
thought they actually saw Him, and that He had 
really risen from the dead. The wish was, in fact, 
father to the thought ; so that when a supposed appear- 
ance took place, they were so filled with joy at their 
Master’s presence, that they neglected to ascertain 
whether the appearance they saw was real, or only 
due to their own fancy. 

With regard to this theory, we must at once admit 
that it is possible for an honest man to mistake a 
phantom of his own brain, arising from some diseased 
state of the mind or body, for a reality in the outer 
world. Such subjective visions are by no means un- 
heard of, though they are not common. And of course 
the great argument in its favour is that it professes 
to account for the alleged Resurrection, without on the 


ee: 


THE RESURRECTION. 395 


one hand admitting its truth, or on the other that 
the witnesses were deliberate impostors, Here, it is 
urged, is a way of avoiding both difficulties, by allowing 
that the witnesses honestly believed all they said, 
only they were mistaken in supposing the appearances 
to be real, when they were merely due to their own 
imagination. 

Let us now consider how this Vision Theory would 
suit the accounts of the Resurrection written by the 
witnesses themselves. As will be seen, we might 
almost imagine that they had been written on purpose 
to contradict it. To begin with, the writers were not 
unacquainted with visions, and occasionally record 
them as happening to themselves or others. But 
then they always use suitable expressions, such as 
falling into a trance.t No such language is used in 
the Gospels to describe the appearances of Christ, 


which are always recorded as if they were actual 


matters of fact. | 
While as to St. Paul, he never confuses the revela- 
tions and visions, which he sometimes had,? with the 
one great appearance of Christ to him, at the com- 
mencement of his ministry near Damascus, which 
qualified him to be an Apostle ; and which he evidently 
considered to be an actual appearance of. Christ’s 
Body, not His Spiit. For when he says that Christ 
died, and was buried, and rose again, and appeared to 
Cephas, etc., he must mean Christ’s Body (for a Spirit 
1 Acts 10. 10; 9. To }) 16.9, etc. 


2) Fog?, 2 Cor.12) 1 sAots 22.17. 
$-7 Coregnar Gal, li r7. 


390 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


cannot be buried), and he must mean that it was 
the same Body that died and was buried, that after- 
wards left the tomb, rose again, and appeared to them, 
including himself. And even in the one case, where he 
alludes to this as a heavenly vision, he cites it as 
proving that it is not incredible that God should raise 
the dead ; which again shows that what he thought he 
saw, was a Body that had risen from the grave. Indeed 
the very word resurrection would ‘be meaningless if 
applied to a spirit ; for that only can rise again, which 
has been laid down in the tomb. 

In addition to which, as said before, he contrasts the 
Body of Christ, which saw no corruption, with that of 
David, which did see corruption. From all of which 
it is abundantly clear that St. Paul, like the Four 
Evangelists, believed in what is called the physical 
resurrection, in the sense that Christ’s Body was re- 
animated and left the grave; though, like them, he 
also believed that it was no longer a natural body, 
bound by the ordinary laws of nature, but that it 
shared to some extent the properties of spirits. 

Secondly, it is plain from all the accounts that the 
Apostles did not expect the Resurrection, and were 
much surprised at it, though they afterwards remem- 
bered that Christ had foretold it. This is shown, not 
only by the Christians bringing spices, etc., to em- 
balm the Body,? and persons do not embalm a body 
unless they expect it to remain in the grave ; but also 
by the account of the appearances themselves. With 
regard to some of these we have no details, and so no 

1 Acts 26. 8, 19. 2 Mark 16. 1; Luke 24. 1. 


THE RESURRECTION. 397 


means of judging; but wherever we have, with the 
single exception of that on the mountain in Galilee, 
(and possibly that to the two Marys), Christ’s appear- 
ance was wholly unexpected. No one was looking for 
it, no one was anticipating it. Nor were the appear- 
ances of such a kind as would have been suggested 
by enthusiasm. Many of them were simple, plain, 
and almost trivial in their character, very different 
from what enthusiasm would have suggested. And 
even those that were otherwise, were still not such as 
the Apostles would be likely to have imagined. Is it 
likely, for instance, that with all their hopes of a re- 
stored Jewish kingdom, they should have imagined a 
Vision telling them to go and baptize all the nations ? 

In the next place, subjective visions, due to enthu- 
siasm, would not have started so soon as the third 
day. It would have required a much longer interval 
for the disciples to have got over the utter confusion 
caused by the crucifixion, and to realise (perhaps by 
studying the old prophecies) that this humiliation was, 
after all, part of God’s scheme, and was to be followed 
by a Resurrection. Nor again would such visions have 
only lasted for a short time ; and yet with the single 
exception of that to St. Paul, they were all over in a 
few weeks, though the enthusiasm of the witnesses 
lasted through life. Thus the appearances beginning 
so soon, and ending so soon, are alike strongly opposed 
to the Vision Theory. 

Fourthly, and this is very remarkable, when Christ 
appeared to His disciples, He was often not recognised 
at first. This was the case with St. Mary Magdalene, 


398 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, CHAP. XVII. 


with Cleopas and his companion, and with the disciples 
at Tiberias. But it is plain that, if they so hoped and — 
expected to see their risen Master, that they eventually 
fancied they did see Him, they would at once have 
recognised Him. Their not doing so is quite incom- 
patible with the Vision Theory, and hence, if this 
theory is true, the record of these appearances at least 
must be intentionally false, for in each case His not 
being recognised is an essential part of the incident. 
Fifthly, we are repeatedly told that at first some 
of the disciples disbelieved or doubted the Resurrec- 
tion. This is an important point, since it shows that 
opinions were divided on the subject, and therefore 
makes it almost certain that they would have used 
what means they had of finding out the truth. More- 
over, some of them remained doubtful even after the 
others were persuaded, St. Thomas in particular re- 
quiring the most convincing proof. His state of 
“mind was certainly not that of an enthusiast, since, 
instead of being so convinced of the Resurrection as 
to have imagined it, he could with great difficulty be 
got to believe it. Indeed, according to these accounts, 
scarcely one of the first witnesses believed the Resurrec- 
tion till the belief was almost forced on him. If, then, 
the Vision Theory is true, this necessitates an additional 
portion of our accounts being altogether untrue. 
Sixthly, subjective visions do not occur to different 
persons simultaneously. A man’s private illusions (like 
his dreams) are his own. A lot of men do not simul- 
taneously dream the same dream, still less do they 


1 Matt. 28. 17; Mark 16. 11-14; Luke 24. 11, 37; John 20. 25. 


THE RESURRECTION. 399 


simultaneously see the same subjective vision—at 
least a vision like that here referred to, of a person 
moving about among them, talking to them, etc. 
This is quite different from Constantine’s army thinking 
that they saw a luminous cross in the sky, or a body of 
Spanish troops that they saw their patron (St. James) 
riding at their head, or anything of that kind, several 
instances of which are known. 

But a subjective vision, at all resembling what is 
described in the Gospels, is extremely rare. It may 
perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in 
his life. It is difficult to believe that even two persons 
_ should be so affected at the same time, while the idea 
that a dozen or more men should simultaneously see 
such a subjective vision is out of the question. And 
the Gospels, it may be added, always imply that Christ 
was visible ¢o all present (though some of them doubted 
as to His identity) which was not as a rule the case in 
other alleged visions. 

But seventhly, this hypothesis does not account for 
many of the actual facts recorded—facts concerning 
which, unless the writings are intentionally false, there 
could be no doubt whatever. Persons could not have 
honestly believed that they went to the Tomb, and 
found it empty, if the Body was there all the time; 
nor that they touched their Master, 7.e., took hold of 
His feet, if He existed only in their imagination, for 
the attempt to touch Him would at once have shown 
them their mistake. Nor could they have seen Him 
eat food, for a subjective vision, like a dream, would 
not explain the disappearance of the food. Nor again 


«4 


400 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


could a mere vision take bread and fish, and give it 
them to eat.! . 

Moreover, how are we to account for visionary con- 
versations ? And yet these occurred on every occasion. 
Christ never merely appeared, and then vanished. 
He always spoke, and often for a considerable time, 
giving detailed instructions ; and can we imagine any- 
one believing a mere vision to have done all this ? 
Is it possible, for instance, that the appearance along 
the road to Emmaus could have been only a vision ? 
In regard to all these particulars, then, and many more, 
the Vision Theory is hopelessly untenable. 

Lastly, there is one other great difficulty which is 
inherent in the Vision Theory, and does not depend on 
any of our accounts, and this is the fact of the Jews 
not being able to produce the dead Body of Christ, 
though His burial-place was well known, and close at 
hand. For no amount of enthusiasm could go so far 
as to say that a man’s body was restored to life (ate, 
talked, and walked), if the corpse was lying before them 
all the time. So the presence or absence of the Body 
seems alike fatal to the theory of subjective visions 
due to enthusiasm. If it could have been found the 
Jews would have produced it, rather than invent the 
story about its being stolen; and if it could not be 
found, fraud, not enthusiasm, must have made away 
with it. } 

With regard to this story, it may be noticed that 
St. Matthew says it was current among the Jews; and 
Justin Martyr, himself a native of Palestine, alludes 


1 Matt. 28.9; Luke 24. 43; John 21. 13; Acts 10.41. 


* THE RESURRECTION. 401 


to it as still in circulation in his day.! And it is also 
intrinsically probable, for the Jews are not likely to 
have made no attempt whatever to dispute the alleged 
Resurrection ; and yet, if they were unable to produce 
the Body, there was obviously nothing else for them to 
say. There can thus be no doubt that some such story 
existed, though the other Evangelists, who wrote for 
Gentiles, and not Jews, do not refer to it. 

But its weakness is self-evident. For the guard of 
soldiers could scarcely have seen the disciples come 
and steal the Body ; and if they said that it was stolen 
_ while they slept, they plainly could not tell whether this 
was true, or whether Christ had come forth of His own 
accord. Moreover that a whole guard (especially of 
Roman soldiers with their strict discipline),2 who were 
put there on purpose to keep the Body, should really 
have gone to sleep, and allowed it to be stolen, and this 
in spite of the noise caused by rolling away the great 
stone, is anyhow most improbable. Nor again is it 
_ likely if the Body was hurriedly stolen, that the grave 
clothes should have been so carefully left behind; and 
yet this is a detail too insignificant to have been worth 


inventing.® 

All, then, that the story proves is this (but this it 
does prove unquestionably), that though the Body was 
purposely guarded, yet when it was wanted it was 
gone, and could not be found. And this is a strong 
argument not only against the Vision Theory, but 
against every theory except the Christian one. For 


1 Justin, Dial., 108. 2 Matt. 28. 14. 
3 Luke 24. 12; John 20. 7. 
26 


402 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. © CHAP. XVII. 


when the Resurrection was first announced, the most 
obvious and decisive answer would have been for the 
Jews to have produced the dead Body ; and their not 
being able to do so strongly supports the Christian 
account. Indeed, the empty Tomb, together with the 
failure of all attempts to account for it, was doubtless 
one of the reasons why the Apostles obtained so many 
converts the first day they preached the Resurrection.* 
And we must remember the obtaining of converts, 
i.c., the founding of Christianity, is, after all, the fact 
that has to be explained. And even if the Vision 
Theory could account for the Apostles themselves 
believing that they had seen Christ, it would not 
account for their being able to convince others of this 
belief, (especially if the Body was still in the tomb,) 
and to found the Church on such a basis. For a mere 
vision, like a ghost story, would begin and end in 
nothing, and if the Resurrection also began in nothing 
how are we to account for its ending in so much ? 
Moreover, a mistaken belief in Christ’s Resurrection 
would only, at most, have brought them back to their. 
former hopes and opinions about Him. It might 
have convinced them that He was the Messiah of the 
Jews, but not that He was the Saviour of the world. 
This required not only the Resurrection, but the — 
subsequent teaching of Christ,—at least such is the ex- 
planation we have of it, and it is difficult to see how 
else it can be accounted for.? 
Summing up these arguments, then, we conclude 
that the Vision Theory is most improbable in any case, 
1 Acts 2. 41. 2 Matt. 28. 18-20; Mark 16.15; Luke 24. 47. 


THE RESURRECTION. 403 


and can only be accepted at all by admitting that 
nearly the whole of our accounts are not only untrue, 
but intentionally so. But on such a supposition it is 
quite needless. Its object was to explain the alleged 
Resurrection without impugning the veracity of the 
writers, and this it is quite unable to do. In short, if 
the writers honestly believed the accounts as we have 
them, or indeed any other accounts at all resembling 
them, the Vision Theory is out of the question. 

It does not even account satisfactorily for the one 
appearance, that to St. Paul, which it might be thought 
capable of explaining. Physical blindness does not 
result from a subjective vision, and to say that in his 
case the wish was father to the thought, and that his 
expectation and hope of seeing Christ eventually made 
him think that he did see Him, is absurd. Here was 
the case of an avowed enemy and a man of great 
intellectual power who was converted solely by the 
appearance of Christ. And as he had access to all 
existing evidence on both sides, and had everything to 
lose and nothing to gain from the change, his con- 
version alone is a strong argument in favour of the 
Resurrection, more especially as the fact itself is 
beyond dispute. 

Before passing on, we must just glance at a modifi- 
cation of the Vision Theory, that has been suggested 
in recent years; which is that the Apostles saw veal 
visions, miraculously sent by God, to persuade them to 
go on preaching the Gospel. But this theory has nearly 
all the difficulties of the ordinary Vision Theory and 
Many more besides; for it admits the supernatural, 

20-—2 


404 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. XvU. 


and yet these divinely sent visions were such as to 
mislead the Apostles, and to make them think that 
Christ’s Body had risen from the grave, and saw no 
corruption, when in reality it was still decaying in the 
tomb! It seems scarcely necessary to discuss such a 
view. Surely if God worked a miracle at all, or gave 
a supernatural vision, it would be to convince men of 
what was true, not of what was false. 

(4.) The Reasoning of the witnesses. 

Lastly, there is the question of reasoning. Allowing 
that the Apostles really saw Christ alive, after His 
Crucifixion, did they draw the right conclusion in 
thinking that He had risen from the dead? The 
opposite theory is that Christ did not die, but only 
fainted on the cross, and being taken down, slowly 
recovered. And in support of this Swoon Theory, it 
is urged that death after crucifixion did not usually 
ensue so quickly, since we are told that Pilate marvelled 
if He were already dead ; and that He might easily have 
been mistaken for dead, as no accurate tests were 
known in those days. Moreover, as He was then placed 
in a cool rock cave, a return to consciousness would 
probably ensue, when, of course, He would come forth 
and visit His friends. And they, superstitious men, 
looking upon their Master as in some sense divine, and 
perhaps half expecting the Resurrection, would at 
once conclude that He had risen from the dead. And 
being very faint, He would probably ask for something 
to eat, which is what He did according to St. Luke, 
and not venture to appear publicly to the Jews. 
Neither of these two last points, it is urged, is satis- 


THE RESURRECTION. 405 


factorily explained on the supposition of a real resur- 
rection of a Divine Christ. 

Now in regard to this theory, it must be admitted 
that men have sometimes (when carefully attended to 
by friends) recovered after crucifixion. And the 
chief argument in its favour is, of course, the same as 
that in favour of the Vision Theory. It professes to 
account for the recorded appearances, without admit- 
ting either the truth of the Resurrection, or deliberate 
falsehood on the part of the witnesses, who, according 
to this theory, were themselves deceived in thinking 
that Christ had risen from the dead, when in reality 
He had never died. They could not therefore have 
helped in restoring Him to consciousness ; He must 
have recovered by Himself. This is essential to the 
theory ; for if, after Christ was taken down from the 
Cross, and handed over to His friends, they had found 
that life was not extinct, and by careful tending and 
nourishing had gradually restored Him, this would 
indeed account for the appearances in a certain sense ; 
but only by admitting that the Christians were im- 
postors in saying that He had risen from the dead, well 
knowing that He had never died, and that all their 
stories about visits to the tomb were merely intended 
to deceive. But if we admit this, no such theory is 
necessary. 

How then would this theory suit the facts of the case ? 
While admitting its credibility, it is hard to find words 
to express its great improbability. It has immense 
difficulties, many of them peculiarly its own. And 
first as to Christ Himself. He must have been ex- 


406 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


tremely exhausted after all the ill-treatment He had 
received ; indeed, the piercing of His side with a spear 
would probably of itself have caused death. And yet 
in this exhausted state He is supposed not only to have 
recovered consciousness, but to have been able to 
come out of the tomb by Himself, rolling away the 
large stone, which would have been specially difficult 
from the inside. And then, instead of creeping about 
weak and ill, and wanting nursing and medical treat- 
ment. He must have walked over twelve miles, to 
Emmaus and back—and this with pierced feet\—and 
have appeared the same evening to His disciples so 
completely recovered that they, instead of looking 
upon Him as still half-dead, imagined that He had 
conquered death, and was indeed the Prince of Life. 
All this implies a rapid recovery on the part of Christ, 
and an amount of credulity on that of the Apostles, 
which are alike inconceivable. 

And it is equally unlikely that so many persons, both 
friends and foes, should have mistaken Christ for dead. 
And yet according to this theory the guard entrusted 
with the execution, who must have had a good deal of 
experience in such matters ; the centurion, who was 
sent for by Pilate on purpose to ascertain this very 
point ; the Christians, who took down the body, carried 
it to the sepulchre, and wrapped it in linen cloths ; 
and the Jews, who asked for a night-guard ; must all 

1 The feet being pierced is often disputed, but St. Luke (who 
probably knew more about crucifixion than we do), evidently 
thought they were; for he records Christ as saying, See my hands 


and my feet that it is I myself, which implies that His hands and 
feet would identify Him. 


THE RESURRECTION. 407 


have honestly believed that Christ was dead when 
He was not. Moreover, the sepulchre was carefully 
guarded by His enemies for the express purpose of 
securing the Body. How then did they let it escape ? | 
If they were not asleep at the time, they must either 
have done this wzllingly, because they were bribed ; 
or else, unwillingly, because they could not help it, 
being overcome by supernatural power ;! and either 
alternative is fatal to the Swoon Theory. 

This theory also requires not only that the Apostles 
should have been deceived in thinking that Christ had 
risen from the dead, but that Christ Himself should 
have countenanced the deception, or He would have 
’ explained the truth to His disciples. He is thus made 
to be a deceiver instead of His Apostles, which all will 
admit to be most improbable. And yet the only other 
alternative is even more so, which is that Christ was 
Himself mistaken in thinking that He had really died, 
when He had not. 

Moreover, what became of Him afterwards? If 
He died again within a few weeks, His disciples could 
scarcely have thought Him the Prince of Life, who had 
the keys of Death and of Hades ;? and if He continued 
to live, where did He go to? And He must anyhow 
have died again at some time, and His real tomb is 
sure to have been much venerated by His followers ; 
and it is difficult to believe that no tradition of it 
should have remained, sufficient at all events to prevent 
the belief in the Ascension. 

But perhaps the chief argument against this cheat 

1 Matt. 28. 4. 4 Acts 3.155 Rev... 18, 


- 


408 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


is that it does not account for many of the actual facts 
recorded ; such as Christ passing through closed doors, 
and vanishing at pleasure, as well as His Ascension. 
These details present no difficulty on the Vision 
Theory, nor on that of deliberate falsehood, but they 
are inconsistent with the present one. And though 
it accounts to some extent for the empty Tomb, it 
does not account for the grave-clothes being there ; 
for if Christ had come out of the Tomb by Himself, 
He could scarcely have left His clothes behind; not 
to mention the difficulty of taking them off, caused 
by the adhesive myrrh, which would have stuck them 
together and to the Body.! So that the discarded 
grave-clothes are fatal to this, as to every other theory, 
except the Christian one ; and yet it was a simple matter 
of fact, as to which there could be no possible mzstake. 
Either the clothes were there, or else the persons who 
said they saw them were telling a falsehood. 

Moreover, in any case Christ could not have walked 
to Emmaus and back, or appeared to the Apostles in 
His grave-clothes, so He must have obtained some others 
somewhere, and where did they come from? His 
enemies are not likely to have supplied them, and if 
His friends did, it makes it more than ever difficult to 
believe that they were not aware of the fraud. And 
yet if they were aware of it, it is strange that the truth 
never leaked out afterwards. 

Our conclusion, then, in regard to this Swoon Theory 
is precisely the same as that in regard to the Vision 
Theory, though for different reasons. It is that the 


1 John 19. 30. 


THE RESURRECTION. 409 


theory is very improbable in any case, and only tenable 
at all by supposing a large part of our present narra- 
tives to be intentionally false. But then such a theory 
is quite needless. 

(C.) CONCLUSION. 

Before concluding this chapter a few remarks may 
be made on the alleged difficulties of the Christian 
theory. There is only one of any consequence, which 
is how such a miracle as the Resurrection could occur 
at all, and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve 
it, do so for this reason. It is not that the evidence 
for it is insufficient, (they have perhaps never ex- 
amined it,) but that no conceivable evidence would be 
sufficient to establish such an event. Miracles, they 
say, are incredible, they cannot happen, and that settles 
the point; for it is of course easier to believe any 
explanation, visions, swoons, or anything else, than 
the occurrence of that which cannot, happen. 

But if we admit that miracles are not incredible ; 
(Chapter VII.) and that though under ordinary circum- 
stances, a dead man coming to life again would be so 
extremely improbable as to be practically incredible ; 
yet as these were not ordinary circumstances, and 
Christ was not an ordinary man, but, as we shall see, 
an absolutely unique Man, claiming moreover to be 
Divine, and having a mass of powerful evidence both 
from His own Character, from previous Prophecies, 
and from subsequent History, to support His claims ; 
then that He should rise from the dead, as a proof that 
these claims were well-founded, does not seem so very 
improbable after all. 


ATO THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVII. 


And granting this, the other difficulties are mostly 

unimportant. That a divine Christ, who was pleased 
to re-assume His human body, should be able to come 
out of the tomb, in spite of the stone and the guard, 
presents no difficulty ; nor that He should appear and 
disappear at pleasure, and in such a form, and in such 
dress, as to be recognised or not as He wished (see 
Chapter XIII.). And His asking for something to 
eat was obviously to satisfy His disciples of the reality 
of His risen Body, and thus disprove the Vision Theory, 
which they were rather inclined to adopt. 
_ There is, however, still one objection which may be 
thought worth notice. It is Christ’s not appearing 
publicly to the Jews. Why, it is asked, did Christ 
only appear to believers? Surely this is very sus- 
picious. If He really did rise from the dead, and 
wished the world to believe it, why did He not settle 
the point by going publicly into Jerusalem? He would 
thus have completely triumphed over His enemies, 
and saved His followers many sufferings. 

In answer to this objection it may be pointed out in 
the first place that the wording is somewhat ambiguous 
and misleading. It is of course admitted that Christ 
only appeared to those who had been His friends before 
His death (except St. Paul), and not to His enemies, or 
even to indifferent persons. But as to the fact of His 
Resurrection, those to whom He appeared were not 
believers : it was only His repeated appearances that 
made them so. And every person to whom Christ 
appeared, no matter how unwilling he was to admit the 
Resurrection (e.g., St. Thomas), was eventually com- 


THE RESURRECTION. AII 


pelled to do so, simply because the evidence was, or at 
all events seemed to him to be, overwhelming. Nor 
is there any reason for thinking that Christ ever wished 
to triumph. over His enemies ; that may be reserved 
for the next world, here He only wishes to save 
them. 

Secondly, it is at least open to doubt whether it 
would have settled the point if Christ had gone publicly 
into Jerusalem. No doubt the Jews who saw Him 
would have been convinced by it, but the nation as a 
whole might, or might not, have embraced Christianity, 
If they did not, which is the more probable on the 
Christian view, since they had already rejected many 
other miracles, the evidence in favour of the Resur- 
rection would have been weakened enormotsly. A 
public entry into Jerusalem which did not convince 
the nation, but which, for example, they ascribed to 
a pretender, would have been worse than useless 
evidentially. 

If, on the other hand, the Jewish nation had em- 
braced Christianity, it is still doubtful whether the 
evidence would have been stronger than it is at present. 
No doubt the early Christians would have been saved 
many sufferings ; but for this very reason their evidence 
would be the less valuable, for we should have no satis- 
factory proof of their veracity. Moreover, it would 
have greatly weakened the force of Prophecy, since, 
in the absence of. ancient manuscripts, the assertion 
that the old Jewish prophecies had been tampered 
with, to make them suit their Christian interpreta- 
tion, would be difficult to disprove. But now these 


412 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XVII. 


prophecies have been preserved by hostile librarians, 
and are thus beyond suspicion. It is hence very 
doubtful whether Christ’s going publicly into Jeru- 
salem would have strengthened the total evidence in 
favour of Christianity. 

But thirdly, even admitting that it would, what 
then ? Can we say that it ought to have taken place, 
or that its not doing so renders the alleged Resurrec- 
tion improbable? Certainly not ; for the evidence in 
favour of the Resurrection is already amply sufficient 
to justify anyone in believing it. And if so, the 
absence of still stronger evidence is no reason for 
disregarding what we have. And, however strong 
the evidence was, some men might always say it ought 
to be stronger. 

Moreover, to get the world to believe in the Resurrec- 
tion required not only evidence, but missionaries, 
that is, men who were so absolutely convinced of its 
truth, as to be willing to spend their whole lives in 
witnessing for it, in all lands and at all costs. And the 
chief object of the Appearances may have been to 
produce such men ; and it is obvious that (apart from 
a miraculous conversion like St. Paul’s) there could 
not have been more than a few of them. 

For only a few could have conversed with Christ, 
and ate with Him after His Death, so as to be quite 
certain that He was then alive; only a few could have 
known Him so intimately before, as to be quite certain 
that it was really He, and only a few had loved Him 
so dearly as to be willing to give up everything for His 
sake. So there were only a few suitable witnesses 


THE RESURRECTION. AT3 


available. And Christ’s frequently appearing to these 
few, in the private and intimate manner recorded in 
the Gospels, was evidently more likely to turn them 
into ardent missionaries (which it actually did) than 
any public appearance. This objection, then, cannot 
be maintained. 

In conclusion, it seems scarcely necessary to sum 
up the arguments in this chapter. Suffice it to say we 
first examined the narratives-of the Resurrection, and 
decided that they had every appearance of being 
thoroughly truthful. And we have since discussed 
at some length the veracity, knowledge, investigation, 
and reasoning of its first witnesses, and not one of these 
points can be fairly doubted. In fact the evidence in 
favour of each is overwhelming. And yet, as before 
shown, unless we dispute one of these points, we are 
bound to admit that the Resurrection was true. 


CHAPTER CXVIIT 


THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE 
PROBABLY TRUE. 


(4.) THEIR CREDIBILITY. 
They present few difficulties, except the casting out of Evil 
Spirits, considered in detail. 


(B.) THEIR APPARENT TRUTHFULNESS. 


(1.) General marks of truthfulness. 
(2.) Special marks of truthfulness. 


(C.) THEIR PUBLICITY. 
(1.) They are said to have occurred in public. 
(2.) They were publicly appealed to. 
(3.) They were never disputed at the time. 
(4.) The silence of classical writers. 
(5.) Futile attempts to explain them away. 


(D.) CONCLUSION. 
Objection, why are there no miracles now ? 


HAVING discussed in the last chapter the Resurrection 
of Christ, we pass on now to the other New Testament 
miracles, and will consider in turn their credibility, 
their apparent truthfulness, and their publicity ; and 
will then conclude by noticing an important objection. 
(A.) THEIR CREDIBILITY. 
Now with one exception, the casting out of evil 
spirits, the miracles present scarcely any difficulty, 
414 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 415 


provided of course miracles at all are credible, which 
we have already admitted in Chapter VII. Most of 
them, especially those of healing, were very suitable 
from a moral point of view, while that they were as- 
serted to be evidential of Christ’s mission is beyond 
dispute. Not only do all the Evangelists declare this, 
but Christ Himself, though He refused to work a 
miracle when challenged to do so—He would not work 
one to order, as we might say—yet appealed to His 
public miracles in the most emphatic manner. Thus, 
when the Baptist sent messengers to inquire whether 
He was the Messiah, His only answer was, ‘ Go your 
way, and tell John the things which ye do hear and see ; 
the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the 
lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are 
raised up,’! etc. 

And He afterwards condemned Chorazin, and other 
cities, in the strongest terms, because, although He 
had done so many miracles there, they had not re- 
pented ; which again shows both the publicity of the 
miracles, and their intended evidential value.2 And 
the passage is specially important, as its genuineness 
is confirmed by the fact that not a single miracle is 
recorded as having been worked at Chorazin. And 
yet, if the Evangelists (or anyone else) had invented 
the saying, they would surely have invented some 
miracles there to justify it. If on the other hand they 
did not invent it, and the words were actually spoken 
by Christ, is it conceivable that He should have blamed 


1 Matt. 11.4; Luke 7. 22; see also Mark 2. 10. 
2 Matt. 11. 21-24; Luke 10. 13-15. 


416 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cyap. xvut. 


these cities for not believing on Him in spite of His 
miracles, if He had done no miracles ? 

We pass on now to the casting out of evil spirits ; 
and as the whole subject of the existence and influence 
of spirits or angels is often thought to present great 
difficulties, we will briefly examine it. And first, as 
to the existence of angels. There is no difficulty here. 
For the whole analogy of nature would teach us that 
as there are numerous beings in the scale of life below 
man, so there would be some beings above man—that 
is to say, between him and the Supreme Being. And 
this is rendered still more probable when we reflect on 
the small gaps there are in the descending scale, and the 
enormous gap there would be in the ascending scale if 
man were the next highest being in the universe to God. 

And that these higher beings should be entirely 
spiritual, t.e., without material bodies, and therefore 
beyond scientific discovery, is not improbable. Indeed, 
considering that man’s superiority to lower beings lies 
in the very fact of his having a semi-spiritual nature, 
the idea that higher beings may be entirely spiritual 
is even probable. And that they should have as great, 
if not greater, intellectual and moral faculties than 
man seems certain ; for otherwise they would not be 
higher beings at all. And this necessitates their having 
free will, with the option of choosing good or evil. 
And that, like men, some should choose one, and some 
the other, seems equally probable. Hence the existence 
of both good and evil angels presents no difficulty. 

Secondly, as to their influence. Now that good 
angels should wish to influence men for good, and 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. AIZ 


might occasionally be employed by God for that pur- 
pose, scarcely seems improbable. And on the other 
hand, that evil angels should wish to act, as evil men 
act, in tempting others to do wrong, is only what we 
should expect. And that they should be able to do this 
is quite credible ; for the whole analogy of nature shows 
that higher beings are always able to influence lower 
ones. While that God should allow them to do so is 
no harder to believe than that He should allow evil 
men to do the same. There is thus no difficulty on 
prima facie grounds as to what is called demoniacal 
temptation. 

But it may still be objected that we have no actual 
evidence of the influence of angels at the present day. 
But this is at least open to doubt. For what evidence 
could we expect to have? We could not expect to 
have any physical sensation, or anything capable of 
scientific investigation, for angels are by hypothesis 
spiritual beings. If, then, they were to influence man, 
say, by tempting him to do evil, all we could know 
would be the sudden presence of some wicked or evil 
thought in our minds, without, as far as we could 
judge, any previous cause for it. And who will assert 
that this is unknown, or that, if known, it does not 
constitute all the proof we could expect of the action 
of an evil spirit ? 

Next as to demoniacal possession. Though our igno- 
rance on the subject is admittedly great, there is nothing 
incredible here. Indeed, the accounts of mesmerism 
at the present day, though they cannot always be 
trusted, seem to show that even one man may so 

27 


418 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVIII. 


entirely possess the mind and will of another as to 
make him do whatever he wishes. And it is certainly 
not more difficult to believe that this power may in 
certain cases be exercised by an evil spirit. And even 
the curious fact, mentioned in the Gospels, that the 
man seems at times to be able to act and speak for 
himself, apart from the spirit who possesses him, is 
quite analogous to instances of double consciousness, as 
they are called, at the present day. And much the 
same may be said of some of the other symptoms which 
resemble certain forms of madness; though, as the 
patients are now kept under restraint in civilised 
countries, they have not the same notoriety. 

But it may be said, why ascribe this madness to an 
evil spirit? But why not? Madness often follows 
the frequent yielding to certain temptations, such as 
drunkenness or impurity ; and that it may really be 
due to the action of an evil spirit, (an unclean spirit 
is the significant term used in the Gospels,) and be the 
appropriate punishment for yielding to /zs temptation, 
is certainly not incredible. And if so, considering the 
grossly immoral state of the world at the Christian 
era, we cannot be surprised at such cases being far 
more common then than now. And the writers, it may 
be added, do.not (like some early nations) attribute all 
maladies to evil spirits, for we read of men having fever 
and palsy, as well as being blind, lame, deaf and dumb, 
without any hint of its being due to an evil spirit. 
And this shows that they were quite able to distinguish 
between the two. Lastly, the cure of demoniacal 
possession presents as a miracle no difficulty whatever. 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. ° 419 


There is, however, an undoubted difficulty in regard 
_ to animals being thus afflicted. But as we have only 
a single example of this, the swine at Gadara, it is little 
~ more than a one-text difficulty.t Still it is a difficulty, 
and I have never seen a satisfactory explanation 
of it; though our ignorance about animals, combined 
with the fact that they resemble man in so many 
respects, prevents us from saying that it is absolutely 
incredible. 

Two other difficulties in regard to this miracle may 
be noticed in passing. The first is on the ground of 
injustice, as Christ allowed the swine to be destroyed, 
without apparently making any compensation to their 
owners. But if He were really the Divine Being He 
claimed to be, the world and all it contained belonged 
to Him ; and His allowing the swine.to be destroyed by 
evil spirits was no more unjust than His allowing them 
to die by disease or in any other manner. And it had 
the advantage of proving conclusively that it was a 
genuine miracle, for the swine could not have been 
confederate in any fraud, or in a case of (so-called) 
natural healing. 

The second objection refers to the swine being kept 
at all, considering the abhorrence in which they were 
held by the Jews. But we happen to know from 
Josephus that Gadara was one of the few Grecian 
cities in the country ; so this is really an evidence of 
truthfulness.2. For if the Evangelist had invented 
the story it is most unlikely that he should have 

1 Matt. 8. 28-34; Mark 5. 1-17; Luke 8, 26-40. 
2 Antiq., xvii. II. 
297—2 


420 THE° TRUTH’ OF CHRISTIANITY.  cuap. xvin. 


unknowingly selected a Grecian city for the miracle ; 
and still more unlikely that he should have done so 
knowingly, and yet without giving a hint that this 
explained the presence of the swine, but leaving his © 
readers to discover it for themselves. And it is also 
an evidence of truthfulness that the recorded effect of 
the miracle, on the multitude, was merely that they 
asked Christ to go away. Writers of fiction would 
hardly have arranged it thus. 

Lastly, we must remember that all the Christian 
miracles lose a great deal-of their improbability when 
we remember the unique position of Christ. And what 
would be incredible, if told of another man, who had 
done nothing to alter the history of the world, may 
be credible of Him. We decide, then, that all the New 
Testament miracles are credible; we have next to 
consider whether they are ¢rue. | 

(B.) THEIR APPARENT TRUTHFULNESS. 

Now the testimony in favour of these miracles is 
very similar to that in favour of the Resurrection of 
Christ. They are recorded by the same writers and 
in the same books, and everything points to these 
accounts being trustworthy. To put it shortly, the 
writers had no motive for recording the miracles unless 
they believed them to be true, and they had ample 
means of finding out whether they were true or not ; 
while many of them are such as cannot possibly be 
explained by want of investigation or an error in 
reasoning. Moreover, as we shall see, they contain 
numerous marks of truthfulness. These may be 
divided into two classes, general, or those affecting the 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 421 


miracles as a whole, and special, or those affecting 
particular miracles, or sayings about them ; and we will 
consider each in turn. 

‘(1.) General marks of truthfulness. 

Among these we may notice first the extremely 
simple and graphic way in which many of the miracles 
are déscribed, such as the curing of the man who was 
born blind, with the repeated questioning of the man 
himself.t It is difficult to think that it does not come 
from an eyewitness.. And the same may be said of a 
large number of the miracles in the New Testament. 

Secondly, the kind of. miracles ascribed to Christ 
seem (as far as we can judge) to be worthy of Him. 
They were to benefit persons, not to injure them, and 
they are a great contrast to the imaginary miracles 
ascribed to Him in the Apocryphal Gospels. It is 
difficult without long quotations to give anyone an 
idea of how extremely puerile these are; when for 
instance Christ was a child, we read of His making 
clay birds fly, of His turning children into kids for 
refusing to play with Him, and of His cursing a boy 
who had run against Him, and who thereupon fell down 
dead.2 How different such miracles are from those in 
our Gospels scarcely needs pointing out. 

Thirdly, the miracles are closely interwoven with the 
moral teaching of Christ, and it is difficult either to 
separate the two or to believe the whole account to be 
fictitious. His wonderful works and His wonderful 
words involve each other, and form together an 


1 John 9. 8-34. 
2 Gospel of the Infancy, chapters xv., xvii., xix. 


422 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XVIII. 


harmonious whole, which is too life-like to be 
imaginary. Indeed, a life of. Christ without His 


miracles would be as unintelligible as a life of Napoleon | 


without his campaigns. Thus not only are the great 
facts of Christianity (such as the Incarnation and the 
Resurrection) themselves miracles, but its lesser facts 
and moral teaching are so mixed up with miracles, 
that a non-miraculous Christianity would be like a 
contradiction in terms. And it is interesting to note 
in this connection that St. Mark’s Gospel, which is 
generally admitted to’ be the earliest of the Synoptics, 
contains the largest proportion of miracles (eighteen 
miracles to four parables). As we should expect, it 
was Christ’s miracles, rather than His teaching, which 
first attracted attention. 

Fourthly, there was a great vartety in the miracles. 
They were of various kinds, worked in various places, 
before various witnesses, and with various details and 


characteristics ; in public as well as in private, in the - 


cities as well as in the country, in groups as well as 
singly ; when watched by enemies as well as among 
friends ; unsolicited as well as when asked for ; affecting 
men as well as women ; the rich as well as the poor, the 
educated as well as the ignorant, Gentiles as well as 
Jews, at a distance as well as near, after due notice as 
well as suddenly, on nature as well as on man—in fact, 
according to our accounts, it is difficult to imagine any 
miracles that could have been more absolutely 
convincing. ) 

‘Fifthly, many of the miracles were of a permanent 
character, and such as could be examined, and re- 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 423 


examined, again and again. When, for instance, a, 
man who had long been lame, or deaf, or blind, was 
restored to health, the villagers, as well as the man him- 
self, could all certify as to the cure for years to come. 
And miracles such as these are obviously of much 
greater value than what we may call momentary 
miracles, (such as St. Peter’s finding the coin in the 
fish’s mouth) where the only possible evidence is that 
of the immediate beholders. 

Lastly, and this is very remarkable, the Evangelists 
nearly always relate that Christ worked His miracles 
by His own authority ; whereas the Old Testament 
prophets, with scarcely an exception, worked theirs 
by calling upon God. Take for instance the parallel 
cases of raising a widow’s son.+ Elijah prays earnestly 
that God would restore the child to life ; Christ merely 
gives the command, I say unto thee, Arise. The differ- 
ence between the two is very striking, and is of itself 
a strong argument in favour of Christ’s miracles ; fot 
had the Evangelists invented them, it is scarcely 
conceivable that they should not have modelled them 
on those of the Old Testament. But instead of this, 
they describe them as worked in a new and unpre- 
cedented manner, and one which must at the time 
have seemed most presumptuous. (Compare the way 
in which the prophets taught, Thus saith the Lord, 
with that of Christ, Verily I say unto you.) 

The Gospel miracles then, from the graphic way in 
which they are described ; the absence in them of any- 
thing puerile or unworthy ; their close connection with 


1 ; Kings 17. 21; Luke 7. 14. 


424 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. = cHAP. XvItl. 


, the moral teaching of Christ; their variety; their 
permanence, and above all from the authoritative way 
in which they are said to have been worked; have 
every appearance of being truthfully recorded. 

(2.) Spectal marks of truthfulness. 

Moreover several individual miracles, and sayings 
about them, are of such a kind as could scarcely have 
been invented.! Take, for instance, the raising of the 
daughter of Jairus. Now of course any writer, wishing 
to magnify the power of Christ, might have invented 
this or any other miracle. But if so, he is not likely 
to have put into the mouth of Christ Himself the words, 
The child is not dead but sleebeth. ‘These words seem to 
imply that Christ did not consider it a miracle, and 
whatever difficulties they present they certainly bear 
the marks of genuineness. And the same may be said 
of the miracle of healing the blind man at Bethsaida, 
which is recorded as if it was a partial failure at first. 
Christians in later times would scarcely have invented 
such a miracle as this to ascribe to their Master. 

Nor again are they likely to have said that His power 
of working miracles was so often conditional on the faith 
of the person to be healed, so much so that in one town 
He could do scarcely any miracles because of their un- 
belief.2 This is not the sort of legend that would have 
grown up round a deified Hero ; it bears unmistakably 
the mark of genuineness. But if the writer had good 
means of knowing that Christ could do no miracles in 
one place, because of their unbelief, had he not equally 


+" Mark’ &: 29 ¢-8.923: 
2 Mark 6. 5-6; Matt. 13. 58; 9. 22, 29. 


~ 


f 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 425 


good means of knowing that Christ could, and did, do 
miracles in other places ? 

And what shall we say of Christ’s frequent commands 
to keep His miracles secret ?1 There may have been 
reasons for this in every case, but Christ’s followers (who 
presumably recorded the miracles to get them known) 
are not likely to have invented, and put into His mouth 
the command to keep them secret; nor is Christ likely 
to have given it, if there had been no miracles to keep 
secret. 

And then there is the striking passage where Christ 
warned His hearers that even working miracles in His 
name, without a good life, would not ensure their 
salvation.2. This occurs in one of His most character- 
istic discourses, the Sermon on the Mount, and it is 
hard to doubt its genuineness. But even if we do, it is 
not likely that Christ’s followers would have thought of 
inventing such a warning, if as a matter of fact no one 
ever did work miracles in His name. 

And much the same may be said of another passage 
(whether written by St. Mark, or Aristion, matters not) 
where Christ announced that all believers would be able 
to work miracles. If He said so, He must surely have 
been able to work them Himself ; and if He did not say 
so, His followers must have been able to work them, 
or their inventing such a promise would merely have 
shown that they were not believers. On the whole, 
then, as said before, the accounts of the New Testament 
miracles have every appearance of being thoroughly 
truthful. 

Ane .g., Mark’5. 43 7) '7.'36. SMatt£7. 22. 3 Mark 16. 17. 


426 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. cmap. xvuit. | 


(C.) THEIR PUBLICITY. 7 

But the most important point has still to be noticed, 
which is the alleged publicity of these miracles ; and 
as this renders the testimony in their favour peculiarly 
strong, we must examine it at some length. 

(x.) They are said to have occurred in public. 

To begin with, many of the miracles are stated to 
have been worked openly, and before crowds of people, 
the names of the places where they occurred, and 
even of the persons concerned, such as Jairus, (a ruler 
of the synagogue) Bartimzus, Lazarus (a man well- 
known to the Jewish authorities), and Malchus, (a 
servant of the High Priest) being often given; and 
hence if untrue, they could have been at once refuted. 
Take for instance the feeding of the five thousand, 
near the Sea of Tiberias. This miracle is recorded in 
each of the Four Gospels ; it forms part of the so-called 
Triple Tradition, and must therefore have been written 
down very soon after the event, when a large number 
of the five thousand were still alive. Now is it con- 
ceivable that anyone would have ventured to make up 
such an account, even twenty years afterwards, if 
nothing of the kind had taken place? Andifhehaddone ~ 
so, would not his story have been instantly refuted? 

And of course the same argument applies in other 
cases ; both in regard to the Gospel miracles, and also 
in regard to those in the Acts, several of which concern 
prominent officials, such as the fro-consul, Sergius 
Paulus, at Cyprus, the gaoler at Philippi, and the chief 
man, Publius, at Malta. And it is hard to over- 
estimate the enormous difficulty of thus asserting public 


‘CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 427 


miracles, with the names of persons, and places, if none 
occurred ; and yet the early Christians asserted such 
miracles from the very first. 

They also declared that the miracles were not only 
much talked about and discussed, but that several of 
those which occurred at Jerusalem were at once 
officially investigated on the spot by the Jewish rulers, 
who made the most searching inquiries about them. 
And this also is not likely to have been asserted, unless 
it was the case ; and not likely to have been the case, 
if there had been no miracles.* 

(2.) They were publicly appealed to. 

Moreover, these public. miracles were publicly ap- 
pealed to by the early Christians. According to the - 
Acts, this was done in the very first public sermon, 
that at Pentecost, by St. Peter, who reminds his hearers 
that they had themselves seen the miracles (even as ye 
yourselves know), as well as in one other speech at least.” 
And this is specially important, because even hostile 
critics, who deny the authenticity of the Acts, yet admit 
that these speeches date from an extremely early time. 
And if so, it shows conclusively that some of Christ’s 
immediate followers not only believed themselves that 
He had worked miracles, but spoke as if their opponents 
believed it too. 

That they are not more frequently alluded to is not 
surprising, when we remember that, according to the 
writer, and he was an undoubted eye-witness in some 
cases,® (as they occur in the We sections,) the Apostles 


1 E.g., John 9. 13-34; Acts 4. 5-22. 4 Acts): 22 + 105138. 
3 Acts 16. 16-18 ; 28. 2-10. 


428 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVIII. 


themselves worked miracles, and therefore there was 
no occasion for them to appeal to those of Christ as 
proving the truth of what they preached. Their own 
miracles were quite sufficient to convince anyone who 
was open to this kind of proof. But still the important 
fact remains that in the first recorded Christian sermon 
the public miracles of Christ are publicly appealed to ; 
and this was within a few months of their occurrence, 
and at Jerusalem, where the statement, if untrue, could 
have been more easily refuted than anywhere else. 
Passing on now to St. Paul’s Epistles ; it is true that 
they do not contain any reference to Christ’s miracles, 
except of course the Resurrection. But as they were 
not written to convert heathens, but to instruct those 
who were already Christians, there is nothing surprising 
in this; and they do not mention any of His parables 
either. On the other hand, they do contain direct 
reference to Apostolic miracles. St. Paul in two of his 
undisputed Epistles positively asserts that he had 
worked miracles himself; and he uses the same three 
words, signs, wonders, and mighty works, which are 
used in the Gospels to describe the miracles of Christ.1 
The second passage is extremely important, since he 
speaks of them as the szgns of an apostle, and calls upon 
his opponents at Corinth to admit that he was an 
apostle because he had worked these miracles; and 
this implies not only that the miracles were publicly 
performed, but that his readers as well as himself 
believed that the power of working miracles belonged 
to all the Apostles. And it will be noticed that he is 


1 Rom. 15.18, 194 2 Cor. 12. 123, see also-Gal. 3.57 


‘ 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 429 


addressing the very persons among whom he declares 
he had worked the miracles; which makes it almost 
inconceivable that his claim was unfounded, quite 
apart from the difficulty of believing that such a man 
as St. Paul would wilfully make a false statement. 
And this is indirect testimony to Christ’s miracles as 
well, for if St. Paul believed that he had worked 
miracles himself, he must surely have believed that his 
Master had done the same. And as he was often at 
Jerusalem,! he had ample means of knowing. 

Moreover, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
also alludes to miracles, which were worked by the 
immediate followers of Christ, and in order to bear 
witness to the truth of what they taught. And he 
seems to imply that this evidence had convinced him- 
self, and those to whom he wrote.2 From all this 
it follows that the first preachers of Christianity not 
only appealed to Christ’s miracles, but also to their 
own, in support of their claims. And, as just said, 
how they could have done this, if they worked no 
miracles, is not easy to understand. 

We next come to a class of writings where we should 
expect to find Christ’s miracles alluded to, and these 
are the first Christian Apologies. Nor are we disap- 
pointed. The three earliest of these, of which we have 
any knowledge, were written by Quadratus, Aristides, 
and Justin. Qwuadratus addressed his Apology to the 
Emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.), and in a passage, 
preserved by Eusebius, he lays stress on what we have 
called the permanent character of Christ’s miracles. 


Me Acts 7/88 $22.3 5 relly -18. 2 Hebi 2. 4. 


430 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. = CHAP. XVIII. 


His words are: ‘The works of our Saviour were 
always conspicuous, for they were real; both they 
that were healed and they that were raised from the 
dead were seen, not only when they were healed or 
raised, but for a long time afterwards ; not only whilst 
He dwelt on this earth, but also after His departure, 
and for a good while after it, insomuch as that some of 
them have reached to our times.’* 

Aristides of Athens wrote about the same time 
(125 A.D.). He bases his defence of Christianity on 
its moral character ; and as it was often attacked for 
being immoral as well as irrational, there is nothing 
surprising in this. But though he does not appeal to 
any public miracles, yet as before said (Chapter XIV.) 
he asserts the Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-birth, 
Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. 

Lastly, Justin in his Apology to the Emperor 
Antoninus (138-161 A.D.) not only specifies many of 
Christ’s miracles, but also says generally that Christ 
‘healed those who were maimed, and deaf, and lame 
in body from their birth, causing them to leap, to hear, 
and to see by His word. And having raised the dead, 
and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled 
the men who lived at that time to recognise Him. 
But though they saw such works, they asserted it was 
magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician 
and a deceiver of the people.’* Justin, however, does 
not base his argument on miracles, but chiefly on 
prophecy, because, as he tells us again, the former 
might be ascribed to magical arts. Thus two out of 

1 Eusebius, Hist., iv. 3. 2 Dial., 69; Apol. I. 30. 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 431 


the three earliest apologists appealed to Christ’s 
miracles in the most public manner possible when 
addressing the Emperor. 

(3.) They were never disputed at the time. 

But now comes another important point. Though 
these public miracles were publicly appealed to by 
the early Christians, and though written accounts of 
them were in circulation very soon after they are 
alleged to have occurred, yet, as far as we know, no 
refuting evidence was produced, certainly none has 
been preserved. And. this is the more remarkable 
since they are said to have been worked among enemies 
as well as friends. They were thus open to the hostile 
criticism of an entire nation ; and we may be sure the 
bitter opponents of Christ, who had brought about His 
death, would have exposed them if they could ; and yet, 
as far as we know, they were never disputed. On the 
contrary, judging by the only evidence we have, they 
seem to have been admitted both by Jews and heathens ; 
though, of course, they both denied their evidential 
value. 

The Jews did this by ascribing them to diabolical 
agency. And though this was a very strange expedient, 
considering that their effect was obviously good and 
not evil, they had really no alternative. Being Mono- 
theists, if they denied that they were worked by God, 
they were bound to ascribe them to the Devil, for 
these were the only supernatural powers they believed 
in; though of course both of these had subordinate 
angels under them. But we may ask, would the Jews 
have adopted such an expedient had there been any 


432 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVIII. 


possibility of denying their occurrence? And yet 
that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed. It 
is positively asserted in each of the Synoptic Gospels ;* 
and it is hardly conceivable that Christians should . 
have reported such a horrible insinuation as that their 
Master was an agent of the Evil One, unless it had been 
made. From this it follows that the Jews admitted 
the Christian miracles, but denied their evidential 
value by adopting the violent, though in their case 
only possible, alternative of ascribing them to the 
Devil. 

But why, it may be asked, if the Jews admitted 
Christ’s miracles, did they not acknowledge His 
claims? The answer is very instructive. The Jews 
as a nation no doubt admitted His miracles, and were 
in consequence quite willing to acknowledge Him as 
the Messiah. The multitude, we read, wished to make 
Him a king by force, escorted Him triumphantly into 
Jerusalem, and were so attached to His cause that 
the authorities were afraid to arrest Him openly. 
But, as we shall see in Chapter XX., He claimed to 
be far more than the Jewish Messiah: He claimed to 
be God. Now, as just said, the Jews were firmly de- 
voted to Monotheism ; anyone, therefore, who claimed 
to be God was of necessity in their eyes a blasphemer. 
And the chief priests, knowing this, not only accused 
Christ of blasphemy, but actually got Him to assert 
His Divine claims on His trial. This at once detached 
the multitude from His side; and though, only a few 
days before, they hailed Him as the Son of David, they 

1 Matt. 12. 24; Mark 3. 22; Luke ll. rs. 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. ARS. 


now with perfect consistency demanded His death. 
However much they were convinced of His miracles 
they were still more convinced of Monotheism. And 
therefore, if a man who worked miracles asserted that he 
was God, they could only ascribe them to the Devil. 

On the other hand, the Heathen were in no such 
dilemma. They believed in a variety of gods, many 
of whom were favourable to mankind, and could be 
invoked by magic. And therefore they could con- 
sistently ascribe the miracles to some of these lesser 
deities, or, in popular language, to magic. And we 
have abundant evidence that they did so. As we 
have seen, it is expressly asserted by Justin, who in 
consequence preferred the argument from prophecy ; 
and Irenzus did the same, and for avowedly the same 
reason.? 

Moreover, Celsus, the most important opponent of 
Christianity in the second century, also adopted this 
view. His works are now lost, but Origen in answering 
him frequently and positively asserts it. For instance, 
“Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which 
Jesus is reported to have performed, has already on 
several occasions spoken of them slanderously as works 
of sorcery.’ And elsewhere he quotes the explanation 
of Celsus, which was that Jesus, ‘ having been brought 
up as an illegitimate child, and having served for hire 
in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain 
miraculous powers, returned from thence to his own 
country, and by means of those powers proclaimed 
himself a God.’ And though Celsus lived some years 


i Bk. ii. 32. 2 Origen cont. Cels., i. 38 ; ii. 48. 
28 


\ 


434 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cuap. xvim. 


after the time in question, it is most unlikely, if the 
early opponents of Christianity had denied that the 
miracles occurred, that its later opponents should have 
given up this strong line of defence, and have adopted 
the far weaker one that they did occur but were due to 
magic. 

Moreover, the Jewish Talmud also asserts that 
Christ’s miracles were due to the magic which He learnt 
in Egypt, so there can be no doubt that this was a 
common explanation of them, and therefore the fact 
that He worked miracles must have been commonly 
admitted.1 And this is also shown by another Jewish 
legend in the Sepher Toldeth Y ehsu, that Christ obtained 
His power of working miracles by hiding Himself in the 
temple, and finding out the Sacred Name; which again 
shows that the miracles themselves were not denied ;? 
though the Jews in later times seemed unwilling to 
ascribe them direct to the Devil. 

And that the heathen admitted the miracles may 
also be inferred from a passage in Justin, who says 
in his Apology (addressed to the Roman Emperor and 
the Senate) that they can learn that Christ worked 
miracles (healing the lame, dumb, and blind, cleansing 
the lepers, and raising the dead) by consulting the Acts 
of Pontius Pilate ; which certainly implies that some 
such document (whether authentic or not) then existed 
at Rome, and that it contained a reference to the 
miracles. 


1 Edersheim’s ‘ Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,’ 1901, vol. ii., 
p. 772, gives a reference to the Tractate Shabbath, p. 104. 

2 Quoted in ‘ Essays and Reviews,’ 12th edit., 1865, p. 139. 

3 Apol. I. 35, 48. 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 435 


We must next notice a well-known, though perhaps 
spurious, passage in Josephus, which describes Christ 
as a ‘ wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for 
he was a doer of wonderful works.’ It then alludes to 
His alleged Resurrection, and ends with the curious 
remark, ‘ The tribe of Christians, so named from him, 
are not extinct at this day.’! The wonderful works 
here referred to were evidently superhuman, 1.c., 
miraculous, since it was in consequence of these that 
the writer doubted whether it was lawful to call Him 
a Man. And though the authenticity of the passage 
has been much disputed, it matters little for our present 
purpose. For no Christian would have described his 
religion as a sect not yet extinct. So if not the words 
of Josephus, they must be the addition of a Jewish or 
Roman editor ; but this is equally good evidence that 
the non-Christians living at the time did not deny that 
the miracles actually occurred. 

Now the above passages show beyond doubt that 
it was possible for men in those days to admit that 
Christ worked miracles without becoming Christians, 
saying they were due either to the Devil or to magic. 
Such attempts at getting out of the difficulty are now 
universally condemned, and anyone who admits the 
miracles admits the religion they were meant to attest. 

(4.) The stlence of classical writers. 

The only argument on the other side is from the 
silence of classical writers. Had the miracles really 
occurred, it is said, especially in such a well-known 
_ place as Palestine, the writers of the day would have 
1 Antiq., xviii. 3. 

28—2 


430 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. = CHAP. XVIII. 


been full of them. But, with the single exception of 
Tacitus, they do not even allude to Christianity, and 
he dismisses it with contempt as a pernicious super- 
stition.* 

Now these words of Tacitus show that he had never — 
studied the subject, for whatever may be said against 
the religion, it certainly was not pernicious ; so that 
he must have rejected Christianity without examination. 
And if the other classical writers did the same, there 
is nothing remarkable in their not alluding to it. H, 
on the other hand, they rejected it after examination— 
if, that is, they considered its alleged miracles, and 
were not convinced by them—they would probably 
have noticed it. What then the.objection amounts to 
is this, that the writers in question did not think the 
Christian miracles worth inquiring about. And this 
is doubtless true, for alleged miracles were common 
enough in those days ; but we have not a single instance 
of a writer who did inquire about them, and was not 
convinced of their truth. 

It may, of course, be replied that some of the events 
-ought anyhow to be alluded to, more especially the 
three hours’ darkness over all the land at the time of the 
Crucifixion. And if this extended over the whole of 
Palestine, it is certainly strange that it should not be 
noticed in secular history. But it may only refer to 
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Compare the case 
‘of the slaughter of the Infants at Bethlehem and in 
all the borders thereof, which evidently does not include 
Jerusalem, only five miles distant, and must therefore 


1 Tac. Annals, Bk. xv., ch. 44. 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 437 


- have been limited to near the village. In the same 
way if the darkness was limited to the neighbourhood 
of Jerusalem there is nothing surprising in its not 
being alluded to by any except Christian writers, for 
whom of course its occurring at this time gave it a 
special significance. 

And though the fact just alluded to, of alleged 
miracles being then so common, is often appealed to 
as discrediting those of Christ, it really does nothing of 
the kind. It merely makes us examine the evidence 
for them more carefully. For if miracles are not only 
(as shown in Chapter VII.) the most suitable signs to 
attest a Revelation, but were esfecially suitable at 
that time, as they were just the sort of signs which were 
then required and expected (and in consequence often 
invented by impostors), is there anything surprising 
in Christ’s giving such signs? Is it not rather what 
we should expect, in the same way that to convince 
a foreigner one would naturally use the language he 
understood best ? 

_ Of course it may be said that this craving for miracles 

would very likely have led to their being ascribed to 
Christ, even had He never worked them, or pretended 
to work them ; and this is no doubt possible. But as 
they were not ascribed to St. John the Baptist—the 
second Elijah—the very man for whom they would 
have seemed so appropriate ; nor later on to the pre- 
tended Jewish Messiah, Barcochba, in the second 
century, it is scarcely probable. 

It should also be noticed that in some respects the 
. testimony of Christian writers is move valuable than 


438 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. = CHAP. XVIII. 


that of Jewish or heathen ones ; for none of the writers 
of that century were born Christians. They were all 
unbelievers before they were believers; and if such 
testimony from unbelievers would be valuable, it is 
still more so from those who showed how thoroughly 
convinced they were of its truth by becoming be- 
lievers. In fact, the best Jewish or heathen evidence 
conceivable is that of well-educated men, like St. Paul 
and St. Luke, who, on the strength of it, became 
Christians. 

While, lastly, it must be remembered that the argu- 
ment from silence is proverbially unsound. We have, 
for instance, over two hundred and forty letters of 
the younger Pliny, and in only one of these does he 
mention Christianity. Suppose this one had been lost, 
what a strong argument could have been formed 
against the spread of Christianity from the silence of 
Pliny, and yet this one shows its marvellous progress 
(see Chapter XXI.). 

This objection, then, is quite insufficient to out- 
weigh the positive testimony on the other side, and 
we are forced back to the conclusion that the actual 
occurrence of the Christian miracles was never dis- 
puted at the time, either by Jews or heathens. And 
considering their alleged publicity, this is a strong 
additional argument in their favour. 

(5.) Futile attempts to explain them away. 

We must next notice certain Rationalistic explana- 
tions which have been given of the miracles. It was 
hardly to be expected that, with such strong evidence 
in their favour, the modern opponents of Christianity 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 439 


would merely assert that the accounts were pure 
fiction from beginning to end. Attempts have of 
course been made to explain the miracles in such a 
way that, while depriving them of any supernatural 
character, it may yet be admitted that some such 
events occurred which gave rise to the Christian 
accounts. For instance, Christ’s walking on the sea is 
explained as His walking on a ridge of sand or rock 
running out just under the water; the raising of 
Lazarus as his having been buried alive ; and feeding 
the five thousand as nothing more than the example 
of Christ and His Apostles, who so freely shared their 
small supply with those around them that it induced 
others to do the same, and thus eventually everyone 
had a little. 

We will consider a single example in detail, and select 
the raising of Lazarus. And if we take the explanation 
of this that was formerly offered by Renan, we shall 
probably have before us the best non-miraculous 
account that can be given of it.1 Renan, then, ad- 
mitted that something which was at the time regarded 
as a miracle occurred at Bethany ; but he explained 
it thus: Christ’s friends, he says, were very anxious 
that He should perform some striking miracle, or what 
seemed to be such, for the sake of impressing the multi- 
tude. And he then proceeds, ‘ Perhaps Lazarus, still 
pale from his sickness, caused himself to be swathed 
in grave-clothes, as one dead, and shut up in his 
family tomb,’ etc. In other words, Lazarus had him- 


1 Renan’s Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour, New York, 1864, 
pp. 304, 305. He afterwards abandoned this theory, I believe, 


440 THE “EFRUTHiHOF -GHRISBIANITY, CHAP. XVIII. 


self buried alive, and then, when Christ was sum- 
moned and the stone rolled away, he of course came 
forth ; and the crowd at once believed that he had 
risen from the dead. 

Now in discussing this theory it seems hard to find 
words to express its great improbability. Is it likely 
that the simple household at Bethany should ever 
have thought of such an elaborate fraud? If they 
believed Christ capable of working a real miracle, 
what need was there for a sham one? and if they 
did not believe it, why did they wish other people to 
believe it? Again, is it likely that Lazarus should 
have consented to sham being dead, especially when 
recovering from a real illness ? Once more, is it likely 
that the fraud could have been carried out successfully 
at the time; and that the truth should never have 
leaked out afterwards, especially as the event was 
much talked about, and seems to have led to Christ’s 
being apprehended,' though this would probably have 
occurred in any case ?* And. above all, is it likely 
that Christ Himself would have countenanced such a 
monstrous imposture ? 

Such a theory, then, would require the very strongest 
evidence to support it; but there is no evidence at 
all, either strong or weak. The most that can be said 
for it is that, according to some critics, it is the best 
way of accounting for the story in our Gospel, assuming 
a real miracle to be out of the question. And the fact 
that even this extraordinary theory is considered more 
likely than that the whole story should be fiction, 

1 John i115 3 5/1239. 2 John 5. 18; 7. 32; 8.59; 10. 39; 11.8. 


CHRISTIAN MIRACLES, . 44I 


shows what overwhelming evidence there is in favour 
of our Gospel history. 

Of course it may still be objected that if the miracle 
really occurred, it ought to have been alluded to by 
the other Evangelists. But they nowhere profess to 
record aij the miracles, indeed they tell us themselves 

that there were some instances even of raising the 
dead which they did not record ;1 so they may have 
omitted this one too. And they probably knew of it, 
as it alone explains the sudden burst of enthusiasm 
with which Christ was received at Jerusalem, and 
which they all record, but do not account for.? 

Lastly, it must be remembered that the Christian 
explanation has but one difficulty, the antecedent or 
philosophical one, for all the miracles. Once admit 
this, and twenty miracles are no more difficult to 
believe than two. On the other hand, the difficulties 
of the Rationalistic explanations are all cumulative. 
If, for instance, the raising of Lazarus is explained by 
his having been buried alive, it does not account for 
Christ walking on the sea. If this is explained by 
there being a ridge of sand running out under the 
water, it does not account for feeding the five thousand, 
and so on indefinitely. In short, the difficulties attend- 
ing such explanations are not only great for each 
individual miracle, but are all cumulative ; and there- 
fore taken together they are quite insuperable. 

(D.) CONCLUSION. 

Before concluding this chapter there is an important 
objection still to be considered. Why, it is said, are 

1 Matt. 10.8; 11.4; Luke 7. 22. 2\Eig.j Mark 11.0. 


442 THE TRUITT OF CHRISTIANITY. | cHAP. XVIII. 


there no miracles now, when they could be properly 
tested ? If they were really employed by God as helps 
to the spread of His religion, why should they not 
have accompanied it all along, as it is said they did 
the Jewish religion ? They are surely wanted for the 
support of Christianity at the present day; and if 
God were, after due warning, to work a public and 
indisputable miracle every half-century, all the other 
evidences of Christianity might be dispensed with. 

The answer to this objection is that the Christian 
revelation does not claim to be an intermittent one, 
like the Jewish, but a final and complete revelation, 
made once for all by Christ and His disciples; and 
that therefore, as there is to be no fresh revelation, 
there can be no fresh miracles—that is, evidential 
miracles—to attest it. The question of other miracles, 
such as those alleged to have taken place at various 
periods of Church History, and which were, as a rule, 
for the benefit of persons already Christians, need not 
be considered here. If true, they would of course 
tend to prove the New Testament ones ; and if untrue, 
they would not disprove them, any more than imita- 
tion diamonds would disprove the existence of real 
diamonds. 

Of course, it may be replied that God might still 
work a miracle now by a man, who stated that it 
was not to authenticate anything fresh which he said 
himself, but merely to confirm what the Founder of 
Christianity had said. And this is no doubt possible, 
but we have not in the whole Bible a single instance of 
such a miracle, 7.e., a miracle not to authenticate some 


- CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 443 


new message from God, but one that had been delivered 
centuries before. On the contrary, according to the 
Bible, a messenger from God always brings his own 
credentials, even though, as in the case of a prophecy, 
they may not be verified till afterwards. And what 
reason have we for thinking that God would change 
_ His method now ? 

Moreover, the method is a most natural one. When 
the Revelation was first given, 7.e., when Christianity 
was first preached, the Church was weak, and had to 
fight its way in a hostile world, so it had the occasional 
assistance of miracles. When it became strong, they 
were no longer necessary, and no longer occurred. 
They had already done all that was required. Their 
object was to establish the'truth of Christianity, and 
this is precisely what they did. The evidence they 
afforded was so powerful that a hostile world found 
it irresistible. And it is, to say the least, extremely 
doubtful whether, if God were to work a miracle now, 
it would convince everybody. 

This objection, then, must be put aside, and we 
therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole chapter, 
that the New Testament miracles are not only credible, 
but that there is extremely strong evidence in their 
favour. In particular, their alleged publicity, com- 
bined with the utter absence of any attempt at 
disproving them, form together a very powerful argu- 
ment. And it is doubtful whether any other religion, 
except, of course, the Jewish, has ever claimed to have 
been attested by public evidential miracles. Chris- 
tianity thus rests upon a unique foundation. Unlike 


444 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XVIII. 


other religions, it appealed at first not to abstract 
reasoning, or moral consciousness, or physical force, 
but to miraculous events, of the truth or falsehood of 
which others could judge. They did judge, and they 
were convinced. We decide, then, that the New Testa- 
ment miracles are probably true. 


CHAPTER XIX; 


THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 


(A.) Tut Passion PROPHECY OF ISAIAH. 

(1.) The historical agreement, very striking. 

(2.) The doctrinal agreement, equally so. 

(3-) The modern Jewish interpretation, quite untenable. 
(B.) THe PSALM OF THE CRUCIFIXION. 

(1.) Its close agreement, all through. 

(2.) Some objections, unimportant. 
(C.) The Divinity OF THE MESSIAH. 

At least three distinct prophecies of this; and it is also 

involved in some hints as to the Doctrine of the Trinity. 


(D.) CONCLUSION. 
Why are not the prophecies plainer ? Cumulative nature 
of the evidence. 


WE propose to consider in this chapter the argument 
from Prophecy. Now it is a remarkable and undisputed 
fact that for many centuries before the Christian era 
it was foretold that one of the Jewish nation should 
be a blessing to all mankind. This promise is recorded 
as having been made both to Abraham, to Isaac, and 
to Jacob ;! and as a matter of fact, Christianity was 
founded by.a Jew, and has undoubtedly been a blessing 
to the human race. This is at least a remarkable co- 
incidence ; and it is to be noticed that, as we proceed 
1 Gen. 22. 18; 26.4; 28. 14. 
445 


446 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIX. 


in the Old Testament, the statements about this future 
Messiah gradually become clearer and fuller, till at last, 
in the Prophets, we find whole chapters referring to Him, 
which Christians assert were actually fulfilled in Christ. 

This argument is plainly of the utmost importance, 
and must therefore be examined at some length. 
Fortunately it is much simplified for two reasons. The 
first is that the question of dates is altogether excluded. 
As a rule, the most important point in an alleged 
prophecy is to show that it was written before its 
fulfilment. But here this is undisputed, since every- 
one admits that the whole of the Old Testament, except 
some of the apocryphal books, was written before 
the time of Christ. The second is, that the writings 
have been preserved by the Jews themselves, who, 
being adverse to the claims of Christianity, are hostile 
librarians, so we may be sure that not a single altera- 
tion in favour of Christianity has crept in anywhere. 

We will now proceed to examine some of the strongest - 
prophecies, avoiding all those that were only fulfilled 
in a figurative, or spiritual, sense ; and selecting whole 
passages rather than single texts, which, however 
applicable to Christ, might also be applicable to some- 
one else, such as His being preceded by a messenger, | 
or His working miracles.1. And we-will first discuss 
somewhat fully both the great Passion Prophecy of 
Isaiah, and the well-known Psalm of the Crucifixion ; 
then we will examine more briefly a group of prophecies 
referring to the Divinity of the Messiah ; and will con- 
clude by considering an important objection. 

1 Mal. 3:.13°4'5 ; Isa. 350 546. 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 447 


(A.) THE Passion PRoPHEcY OF ISAIAH (52. 13-53. 12). 

It may be pointed out at starting that there are no 
variations in translation worth speaking of, and that 
no one denies the antiquity of the passage. Moreover, 
it is taken from a writing avowedly prophetic. There 
is scarcely any doubt that the writer thought, and 
intended his readers to think, that he was foretelling 
future events. And it forms one complete whole, 
closely connected together and not mixed up with 
any other subject. And so in regard to its fulfilment, 
most of the details mentioned below occurred within 
a few hours. We will consider first the historical, and 
then the doctrinal agreement. 

(1.) The Historical Agreement. 

With regard to this, the following is the translation 
from the Revised Version, together with the corre- 
sponding events. It will be observed that the suffer- 
ings of the Messiah are usually expressed in the past 
tense, and His triumph in the future, the prophet 
placing himself, as it were, between the two. This 
seems to have been to emphasise the fact that the 
sufferings were the cause of the triumph, which could 
not be so graphically expressed in any other way. 
But the Hebrew tenses are rather uncertain, and 
what is translated as past in the Revised Version is 
translated as future in the Authorised Version (e.g., 
the first part of 53. 2). 


52. 13. ‘Behold, my _ servant The excellence of Christ’s 
shall deal wisely, he shall be ex- teaching and conduct is now 
_ alted and lifted up, and shall be generally admitted; while His 
very high. exalted position as the object 

of worship by millions of men 
cannot be disputed. 


448 THE TRUTH OF 

14. ‘Like as many were as- 
tonied at thee (his visage was so 
marred more than any man, and 
his form more than the sons of 
men) so shall he sprinkle many 
nations ; 


1s. ‘Kings shall shut their 
mouths at him: for that which 
had not been told them shall 
they see; and that which they 
had not heard shall they under- 
stand. 


53. 1. ‘ Who hath believed our 
report ? and to whom hath the 
arm of the Lord been revealed ? 


2. ‘ For he grew up before him 
as a tender plant, and as a root 
out of a dry ground: he hath 
no form nor comeliness ; 


— 


CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. xIx. 


And yet at the time of His 
death, which was in public so 
that many saw Him, the cruel 
treatment He had _ received 
(crowning with thorns, scourg- 
ing, etc.) must have terribly dis- 
figured His face and body. 

But just as men were then 
astonished at the greatness of © 
His sufferings, so are they now ~ 
at the greatness of His triumph ; 
even Gentile kings are silent 
with reverence,! when contem- 
plating such an unheard-of story. 
which they, unlike the Jews, had 
never had announced to them 
beforehand by prophecy. 

Indeed the account of His life, 
which the prophet is about to de- 
clare, is so marvellous that it can 
scarcely be believed. The Arm (or 
Power) of the Lord probablyrefers 
to the Messiah, who would be 
recognised by hardly anyone.? 

This was because. He lived at a 
place (Nazareth) which was al- 
ways regarded as dry ground so 
far as anything good was con- 
cerned ; and His appearance was 
humble and devoid of any out- 


~ ward splendour, such as might 


have been expected in the Mes- 
siah. And these it should be 
noticed were the very reasons the 
Jews themselves gave for not 
believing on Him.* While the 
phrase ‘ He grew up before Him 
as a tender plant,’ implies that 
God had taken a special interest 
in Him from His birth, as a gar- 
dener would in a choice flower, © 
and prepared Him for His work. 


1 Comp. Job 29. 9. 


3 John 1. 46; 7. 


2Isa. 40. 10 ; 51.93 31 Cortina 


52; Mark 6. 3. 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 


and when we see him, there is no 
beauty that we should desire 
him. 


3. ‘He was despised, and re- 
jected of men ; a man of sorrows, 
and acquainted with grief: and 
_ as one from whom men hide their 
face he was despised, and we 
esteemed him not. 


4. “Surely he hath borne our 
griefs, and carried our sorrows: 
yet we did esteem him stricken, 
smitten of God, and afflicted. 


5. ‘But he was wounded for 
our transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities: the chastise- 
ment of our peace was upon him ; 
and with his stripes we are healed. 

6. “All we like sheep have 
gone astray; we have turned 
every one to his own way; and 
the Lord hath laid on him the 
iniquity of us all. 

7. ‘He was oppressed, yet he 
humbled himself and opened not 
his mouth; as a lamb that is 
led to the slaughter, and as a 
sheep that before her shearers is 
dumb; yea, he opened not his 
mouth. " 

8. ‘By oppression and judg- 
ment he was taken away ; and as 
for his generation, who among 
them considered that he was cut 
off out of the land of the living ? 


‘Deut, 21,2377 Galoary 3: 


449 


This is very appropriate to the 
time of His Passion, when Pilate 
presented Him to the people, 
only in such a state (crowned 
with thorns, etc.) that when they 
saw Him they did not desire 
Him. 

But they at once rejected Him 
(as they had done often before) 
and asked for Barabbas instead ; 
while He was despised and 
scorned by the soldiers at His 
trial, and by the Chief Priests 
and Rulers when He hung upon 
the Cross. 

And His life was not only one 
of grief and sorrow, but such a 
death seemed to show that He 
was accursed of God, for the 
Jews so regarded anyone who 
was crucified.! 

The scourging and other ill- 
treatment is here alluded to. 


Christ, who is frequently 
called the Lamb of God, not 
only bore His ill-treatment with 
the utmost patience, but refused 
to plead at His trial, to the utter 
astonishment of Pilate.? 


He was not killed accident- 
ally, nor by the mob, but had a 
judicial trial; and was most 
unjustly condemned. While 
few, if any, of His contempor- 


Se Mate 75 ie 
29 


450 THE TRUTH OF 
for the transgression of my 
people was he stricken (or fo 
whom the stroke was due, margin, 
and American R.V.). 

_g. ‘And they made his grave 
with the wicked, and with the 
rich in his death ; 


although he had done no vio- 
lence, neither was any deceit in 
his mouth. 


10. ‘ Yet it pleased the Lord 
to bruise him ; he hath put him 
to grief: when thou shalt make 
his soul an offering for sin, he 
shall see his seed, he shall pro- 
long his days, and the pleasure 
of the Lord shall prosper in his 
hand. 


11. ‘ He shall see of the travail 
of his soul, and shall be satisfied : 
by his knowledge shall my right- 
eous servant justify many: and 
he shall bear their iniquities. 


1 Matt. 27. 57; John 19. 39. 
3 Mark 14. 


CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIX. 


aries understood that His death 
was for the sins of the people, 


to whom the punishment was 


really due. 

He was appointed to die be- 
tween two robbers, and would 
doubtless have been buried with 
ordinary criminals, had not 
Joseph of Arimathea intervened ; 
when, in strange contrast with 
His ignominious death, He was 
honourably buried by the rich 
(Joseph and Nicodemus), with 
costly spices, and in a rich man’s 
tomb.? 

Although His judge repeatedly 
declared that He was innocent ; 
as did also. His fellow-sufferer, 
the centurion, and his betrayer. 

Yet after His death He was to 
see His seed, and prolong Hts 
days, 1.¢e., rise again from the 
dead. The word seed can 
scarcely mean literal children, 
since He was to obtain them by 
His death. And as it is some- 
times used in Isaiah for a class of 
people,? it doubtless has this 
meaning here, and refers prim- 
arily to the spiritual children, or 
disciples, whom Christ saw after 
His Resurrection. 

And this is strongly confirmed 
by their being called the travail of 
His soul, not body; an expres- 
sion which also implies that He 
had some intense mental struggle 
comparable to the bodily pains 
of childbirth ; which is very suit- 
able to the mental agony which 
Christ endured, both in the Gar- 
den and on the Cross.* 


2 Isa... 4inl4°2087 ane 
3600 had 


/ 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 


12. ‘Therefore will I divide 
him a portion with the great, and 
shall he divide the spoil with the 
strong ; because he poured out 
his soul unto death, and was 
numbered with the transgressors : 
yet he bare the sin of many, and 
made intercession for the trans- 


> 


451 


His subsequent triumph in 
the Christian Church is here 
alluded to. While the closing 
words exactly agree with His 
dying a shameful death between 
two robbers ; and yet praying for 
His murderers, ‘ Father, forgive 
them.’ 


gressors.’ 


It seems hardly necessary to insist on the agreement 
shown above ; it is indisputable. The sufferings and 
the triumph of the future Redeemer are foretold with 
equal confidence and with equal clearness, thou gh they 
might well have seemed incompatible. 

(2.) The Doctrinal Agreement. 

We pass on now to the doctrinal agreement, for the 
significance of the passage does not depend on these 
prophecies alone, though they are sufficiently remark- 
able, but on the meaning which the writer assigns to 
the great tragedy. It is the Christian doctrine con- 
cerning Christ’s death, and not merely the events 
attending it, which is here insisted on. This will be 
best shown by adopting the previous method of 
parallel columns, showing in the first the chief points 
in the Christian doctrine, and in the other the prophet’s 

- words corresponding to them. 


All mankind are sinners. ‘ All we like sheep have gone 
astray; we have turned every 
one to his own way.’ 

‘My righteous servant.’ 

“He had done no violence, 
neither was any deceit in his 
mouth.’ 

“Surely he hath borne our 
griefs, and carried our sorrows.’ 


29-~2 


Christ alone was sinless. 


He suffered not for His own 
sins, but for those of others. 


452 THE PT RUPEE 
Nor was this the mere accidental 
suffering of an innocent man for 
a guilty one; it was a great 
work of atonement, an offering 
for sin. This is the central 
feature of the Christian doctrine, 
and it is strongly emphasised in 
the prophecy, which is above all 
the account of a Saviour. 


And it involved not only bodily 
suffering, but mental and spiri- 
tual as well, due to His thus 
bearing the sins of the world. 

And this Atonement was the 
fulfilment of all the Old Jewish 
sacrifices; so that there was a 
special fitness in Christ’s being 
put to death at the time of ‘the 
Jewish Passover. 


And yet it availed not only for 
the Jews, but for all mankind. 


Moreover, Christ’s sacrifice was 
voluntary. He said that He 
freely laid down His life, no one 
took it from Him; and that 


CHRISTIANITY.  cHAP. XIX. 


‘He was wounded for our 
transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities ; the chastise- 
ment of our peace (7.e., which 
procured our peace) was upon 
him ; and with his stripes we are 
healed.’ 

‘The Lord hath laid on him 
the iniquity of us all.’ 

‘For the transgression of my 
people was he stricken.’ 

‘When thou shalt make his 
soul an offering for sin.’ 

‘And he shall bear 
iniquities.’ 

‘He bare the sin of many.’ 

‘ The travail of his soul.’ 

‘He poured out his soul unto 
death.’ 


their — 


This is shown by the sacri- 
ficial language employed. Thus 
the offering for sin is the same 
word as that used in Leviticus 
and elsewhere for the guzlt- 
offering (or  trespass-offering, 
A.V.). While the curious ex- 
pression ‘So shall he sprinkle 
many nations’ evidently refers 
to the sprinkling of the blood 
in the Jewish sacrifices (¢.g., 
Lev. 16. 14-19), as the same 
word is used, and means cleans- 
ing them from sin. 

The many nations must in- 
clude Gentiles as well as Jews ; 
and that a Jew should have 
prophesied this is very remark- 
able, considering their exclusive- 
ness. 

‘He poured out his soul unto 
death.’ This implies that the 
act was voluntary, or it would 
be ‘ He died,’ or ‘ He was put to 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 


though His soul was sorrowful 
unto death, still this was the ob- 
ject for which He had come. 
Fionn > 10.5 187571 oer s7 py Matt. 
26. 38). 


And yet it was in a certain 
sense by God’s appointment, and 
acceptable to Him. 

In consequence of this free 
offering of Himself, Christ 
founded His Church, a mighty 
empire, able to hold its own with 
the kingdoms of the world. 


And His Church has been most 
successful in winning souls to 
God, which is pre-eminently 
what God wishes. 

Moreover, Christ foresaw these 
fruits of His Passion, and was 
satisfied with them. 

Lastly, Christians are justified 
only by Christ’s Atonement. 


453 


death.’ And this is rendered 
still clearer from the context. 
It was because He did this that 
He was to divide the spoil, etc. 
His death was thus the condition 
of His victory, and must clearly 
have been voluntary. And the 
same is shown by the expression 
He humbled Himself, which also 
implies that the humiliation was 
voluntary, 7.e., He let Himself be 
humbled. 

“Yet it pleased the Lord to 
bruise him ; he hath put him to 
grief.’ 

‘Therefore will I divide him 
a portion with the great, and he 
shall divide the spoil with the 
strong.’ 

‘ He shall be exalted and lifted 
up, and shall be very high.’ 

‘ The pleasure of the Lord shall 
prosper in his hand.’ 


‘ He shall see his seed.’ 

‘He shall see of the travail 
of his soul and shall be satisfied,’ 

‘By his knowledge (or by the 
knowledge of himself, American 
R.V.) shall my righteous servant 
justify many: and he shall bear 
their iniquities.’ 


All this, it is plain, exactly suits the Christ of 


Christendom ; and it is equally plain that it does 
not and cannot suit anyone else, since many of the 
Christian doctrines are quite unique, and have no 
parallel in the Jewish or any other religion, This is 
indeed so striking, that if anyone acquainted with 
Christianity, but unacquainted with Isaiah, came across 


A54 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XIX. 


the passage for the first time, he would probably ascribe 
it to one of St. Paul’s Epistles. And certain it is that 
every word of it might be found there with perfect 
fitness. 

(3.) The modern Jewish interpretation. 

Now, what can be said on the other side? Many 
of the ancient Jews interpreted the passage as re- 
ferring to their future Messiah ;* but the modern Jews 
explain it as referring to the Jewish nation, which they 
say is here personified as a single man, the Servant of 
the Lord. And it must of course be admitted that 
Isaiah does frequently speak of the Jews as God's 
servant, (e.g., ‘ But thou Israel, my servant, and Jacob 
whom I have chosen,’)2 though he nowhere else uses 
the term ‘ my righteous servant,’ which he does here, 
and which would be obviously inapplicable to the 
nation. 

But it is important to remember that this prophecy 
does not stand alone, and a little before we read in a 
similar passage, ‘ And now saith the Lord that formed 
me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob 
again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him : 
(for I am honourable in the eyes of the Lord, and my 
God is become my strength :) yea, he saith, It is too 
light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to 
raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the pre- 
served of Israel : I will also give thee for a light to the 
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the 


1 References are.given in Edersheim’s ‘ Life and Times of Jesus 
the Messiah,’ 1901, vol. ii., p. 727; andi., p. 52. 
2 Isa. 41. 8. 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES, 455 


end of the earth. Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer 
of Israel, and His Holy One, to him whom man de- 
spiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant 
of rulers : Kings shall see and arise ; princes, and they 
shall worship.’ 

Here it will be noticed the Lord’s servant is twice 
distinguished from both Jacob and Israel, and evidently 
means the Messiah ; while His life-long preparation for 
His work, His sinlessness (implied in His being honour- 
able in the sight of God), His bringing salvation to the 
Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, His humiliation in 
being despised of men and abhorred of the Jewish 
nation, and His subsequent triumph, even Gentile 
Kings submitting themselves to Him; are all alluded 
to, much as they are in the present passage. 

Again in two other passages, at least, the Lord’s 
servant is Clearly a person, real or imaginary, and not 
a nation. Could the following verse, for instance, 
(closely fulfilled by the way in Christ,) have been 
possibly intended for the Jewish nation? ‘I gave my 
back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that 
plucked off the hair, I hid not my face from shame and 
spitting.’ 

No doubt there is a difficulty in the prophet thus 
passing from one meaning of the word servant to 
another, and various attempts have been made to 
explain it ; but it does not alter the fact that he does 
so. Perhaps the best explanation is that Israel was 
intended to be God’s servant, but owing to their sins 
became unfitted ; when God promised to raise up here- 


1 Isa. 49. 5-7. 4 [sav 50..6-10); 42, 1-6. 


4560. THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP, XIX. 


after a righteous servant, who should do all His pleasure, 
and atone for Israel’s failure. And we must remember 
the term Servant is applied to the Messiah by Zechariah 
(My Servant, the Branch) and also in the New Testa- 
ment.* 

Moreover, the Jewish interpretation not only leaves 
all the minuter details of the prophecy unexplained 
and inexplicable, but ignores its very essence, which, 
as before said, is the atoning character of the suffer- 
ings. No one can say that the sufferings of the Jews 
were voluntary, or that they were not for their own 
sins, but for those of other people, which were in con- 
sequence atoned for. Or, to put the argument in 
other words, if the He refers to the Jewish nation, to 
whom does the owr refer in such sentences as He was 
wounded for our transgressions ? This interpretation 
then is hopelessly untenable, and the passage either 
means what Christians assert or it means nothing. 

In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that all 
these minute historical details attending Christ’s death, 
and all these remarkable Christian doctrines concern- 
ing it, are all found within fifteen verses of a writing 
avowedly prophetic, and written many centuries before 
the time of Christ. It would be hard to over-estimate 
the great improbability of all these coincidences 
being due to chance ; indeed, such a conclusion seems 
incredible. 

(B.) THE PSALM OF THE CRUCIFIXION (Ps. 22.). 

We pass on now to another most remarkable pro- 
phecy ; for this well-known Psalm describes what can 

1 ‘Zech, 3, 85vActs 3°13 3°) Pinly2ez 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 457 


only be regarded as a crucifixion. The decisive verse 
is of course, They pierced my hands and my feet ; but 
even apart from this, the various sufferings described 
cannot be all endured in any other form of death, such 
as stoning, beheading, etc. ; and the Psalm agrees with 
the Death of Christ, both in its numerous details, and 
in its whole scope and meaning. We will therefore 
consider this close agreement first, and then some of 
the chief objections. 

(1.) Its close agreement. 

We need not quote the Psalm at length, as it is so 
well known ; but will point out the agreement verse 
by verse. 


Ver. 1. His feeling forsaken by God, and using these actual 
words : ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ 
2. as well as praying for deliverance during the previous 
night ;1 
3-5. though He belonged to God’s chosen people, the Jews, 
whose fathers had so often been helped by God before. 
6. His pitiable condition in being exposed to the scorn and 
reproach of men, and despised of the people, appar- 
ently for some hours. 
7. The manner in which they mocked Him, shaking the 
‘head, etc., 
8. and the exact words they used: He trusted on the Lord 
that He would deliver him, let Him deliver him seeing 
He delighteth in him (margin). These words show that 
the speakers themselves were Jews, and that He was 
thus put to death among His own nation. And the 
last clause can only be meant ironically in the sense 
that the Sufferer claimed that God delighted in him, 
claimed, that is, in some special sense to be God’s 
beloved Son.? 
9..And, as a matter of fact, God had specially watched 
over Him from His infancy ; 


1 Mark 14. 35 ;. Heb. 5. 7. 2 Matt. 27. 43. 


458 


LQ; 


Il. 


12. 


03: 


14. 


tS. 


16. 


7, 
18. 


Noir te Be fat aly ee ee 
1 Comp. Isa. 49. 5. 2 Amos 4, 1; Ezek. 39. 18. 


THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XIX. 


and His whole life had been dedicated to Him ; so that 
He could say that God had been His God,’ even from 
His birth.1 The human mother, it will be noticed, is 
more than once alluded to, but there is no hint that 
He ever had a human father. 

His being abandoned by His disciples, and left without 
a helper ; 

though surrounded by His enemies, described as bulls 
of Bashan ; a curious term used elsewhere for the un- 
just rulers of the people,? and therefore very applicable 
to the chief priests and rulers, who had so unjustly 
procured His condemnation ; 

and who now stood round the Cross reviling Him,* 
gaping with the mouth being a common expression of 
contempt.* The custom of thus speaking of men as if 
they were animals, which seems to us so extraordinary, 
was thoroughly Eastern, and occurs repeatedly in the 
Bible. : 

His side being pierced, so that there poured out a quan- 
tity of watery fluid (mixed with clots of blood), the 
probable cause of this—the rupture of the heart5— 
being also hinted at ; while His bones were almost 
dislocated, by the weight of the suspended Body. 

His suffering exhaustion, and extreme thirst, immedi- 
ately before His death.® 

His being crucified (7.e., His hands and feet being 
pierced), the men who did this being here called dogs ; 
a term of reproach used by Christ Himself for the 
Gentiles, in distinction to the Jews,” and thus very 
appropriate to the Gentile (Roman) soldiers who cruci- 
fied Him. 

And they also exposed His Body, so that His bones 
stood out in relief. And they then stood watching 
Him ; 

and divided His garments among them, casting lots for 
one of them. 


3 Matt. 27. 41; Luke 23. 35. 

4 E.g., Job 16. 10; Lam. 2. 16. 

5 See ‘ The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ,’ by Dr. Symes 
Thompson, 1904. 

6 Lam. 4. 4: John 19. 28-30. 7 Matt. 15. 26. 


19-21. 


22. 


25: 


26. 


27. 


28. 


20. 


30. 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 459 


Then follows a short prayer, with the assurance of de- 
liverance. The term sword, as it occurs in connection 
with the dog, and the lion’s mouth, need not be pressed 
literally ; but may be used here (as in other cases)! 
for any violent death. 

And now the strain suddenly changes, the Sufferer is 
somehow restored to life, and He at once declares 
God’s name unto His brethren. And yet as they were 
Jews, they must have known God’s name before, so 
it probably means telling them something further 
about it. And this exactly corresponds with Christ’s 
now declaring for the first time God’s true and com- 
plete Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, unto His 
brethren, as He calls them, the Apostles.? 


. Moreover, His deliverance is of world-wide significance, 


and great blessings are to follow from it. These 
commence with the Jews ; 


. and are somehow connected with God’s not having 


despised, but having accepted, His sufferings. 

And they include a reference to some vows (meaning un- 
certain) ; 

and to a wonderful feast of which the poor, or meek, are 
to eat and be satisfied, because (unlike an ordinary 
meal) it is connected with, their living for ever. It is 
hence often thought to refer to the Holy Communion, 
to which the same language seems applied ; ‘ He that 
eateth this Bread shall live for ever.’3 

And the blessings then extend to the Gentile nations 
also, even to the most distant parts of the world, who 
are now to become worshippers of the true God, Jehovah. 

To Whom the whole earth, both the Jewish kingdom, 
and the Gentile nations, really belongs. 

And the rich all over the earth, Gentiles as well as Jews, 
are also to eat of this strange feast (so it cannot be a 
literal meal at Jerusalem) and to worship Him, who 
is the God of living and dead. 

After this we read of a seed serving Him, probably used 
here, as in Isaiah, of successive generations of dis- 
ciples, each of which is to tell of this wonderful deliver- 
ance to the next ;_ 


1 Comp. 2 Sam. 11. 24; 12. 9. 2 Matt. 28. 10, 19 ; John 17. 26. 


3 John 6. 58. 


460 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIX. 


31. And so on to generations that are yet unborn. While 
the closing words, He hath done i (R. V.) are 
often taken as referring to the whole Psalm, and 
meaning that the work of suffering and atonement 
was now complete, J¢ is done ;+ and they would thus 
correspond to Christ’s closing words on the Cross, Jt 
is finished. 


Everyone must admit that the agreement all 
through is very remarkable; though of course there 
are some objections. 

(2.) Some objections. 

The first is that there is nothing to show that the 
writer meant the Psalm to refer to the Messiah at all, 
though, strange to say, some of the Jews so interpreted 
it 2 and therefore if there is an agreement, it is at 
most only a chance coincidence. But the idea of all 
these coincidences being due to chance is most 1m- 
probable. And there certainly is some indication that 
it refers to the Messiah, since it leads up to the con- 
version of the Gentiles, which the other Jewish prophets 
always associate with the times of the Messiah ; and 
this is very significant. 

Moreover, if the Psalm does not refer to Christ, it 
is difficult to see to whom it does refer, since it is quite 
inapplicable to David, or Hezekiah, or anyone else at 
that time; as crucifixion was not a Jewish punish- 
ment, though dead bodies were sometimes hung on 
trees.8 And yet, as just said, verses 7-8 clearly show 

1 Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 1867, vol. i., pp. 364, 

6. 

i Edersheim, vol. ii., 718, 732 ; Hengstenberg, Christology of O.T., 


1847, p. 80. 
3 E.g., Deut. 21. 22; Josh. 10. 26; 2 Sam, 4..12. 


4 + ' 
ee 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 461 


_ that the Sufferer was put to death among Jews. This 
strange anomaly exactly suits the time of Christ, 
when Judea was a Roman province, so that a Jew 
might be put to death among his own countrymen, 
but not in the Jewish manner by stoning, but by 
crucifixion. 

Many of the detatls also are quite inapplicable. 
David, for instance, never had his garments divided 
among his enemies; and yet (even apart from our 
Gospels) there can be no doubt that the garments of 
Christ were so divided, as the clothes of a prisoner 
were the usual perquisites of the guard who executed 
him. 

And any such reference (to David, etc.) is rendered 
still more improbable, because the sufferer appears to 
have no consciousness of sin, and never laments his 
own wickedness, as the psalmists so frequently do 
when writing about themselves. And here also the 
Psalm is entirely applicable to Christ, since His un- 
consciousness of sin was (as we shall see in the next 
chapter) one of the most striking features in His 
character. Nor again did the deliverance of David 
in any way lead to the conversion of the Gentiles, which, 
as just said, is the grand climax of the Psalm, and 
which alone excludes all other interpretations. 

But in any case this objection (which is also made to 
other Old Testament prophecies) is unsound ; for it 
simply begs the question as to who was their real 
author. . Was it the human prophet, or was it God Who 
inspired the prophet to write as he did? And the 
prophets themselves emphatically declared that it was 


/ 


462 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XIX. 


the latter. They did not claim to be specially gifted 
men, but merely the mouthpiece of Jehovah. The 
word of the Lord came unto them, or a vision was 
granted unto them, and they had to proclaim it. And 
therefore there is no reason for thinking that they 
either knew, or thought they knew, the whole meaning 
of their prophecies; and the objection falls to the 
ground at once. And though the present Psalm is 
not avowedly prophetic, yet as it actually suits the 
life of Christ in so many particulars, we seem bound to 
consider it so. 

Secondly, it is said that some of the clauses, especially 
that about the vows in verse 25, do not seem to be 
applicable. to Christ. But even if we admit this, it 
does not destroy the striking agreement in other 
places ; just as a man’s portrait may seem to us to be 
defective in some respects, and yet we may have no 
doubt that it is his portrait. Perhaps the best ex- 
planation as to the vows is that it was the custom 
among the Jews, when in trouble, to vow that if de- 
livered, they would offer a sacrifice to the Lord, which 
was afterwards given as a feast to the poor. And 
therefore as the present feast is obviously not a literal 
one, the vows need not be taken literally either. 

The third objection is, that some of the events 
fulfilling this, and other Old Testament prophecies, 
never happened, but were purposely invented. This, 
however, destroys altogether the moral character of 
the Evangelists, who are supposed to tell deliberate 
falsehoods, in order to get a pretended fulfilment of 


i. 7 Pet: Te -to0-t ks 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 463 


an old prophecy. And the difficulty of admitting this 
is very great. Moreover, such explanations can only 
apply to a very few cases ; since, as a rule, the events 
occurred in public, and must therefore have been well 
known at the time. 

And even in those cases where the event was so 
trivial, that it might possibly have been invented, such 
an explanation is often untenable. Take, for example, 
the manner in which Christ on the cross was mocked 
by His enemies, who said, ‘ He trusted in God, let him 
deliver him now if he desireth him.’! A more probable 
incident under the circumstances can scarcely be 
imagined, the chief priests quoting the familiar lan- 
guage (just as men sometimes quote the Bible now) 
without thinking of its real significance. But, sup- 
posing the words were never uttered, is it conceivable 
that the Evangelist should have invented them merely 
to get a pretended fulfilment of this Psalm, where the 
Crucified One is mocked with these identical words, 
and yet have never pointed out the fulfilment himself, 
but have trusted to the chance of his readers discover- 
ing it ? 

None of these objections, then, are of much im- 
portance ; while the agreement of the Psalm with the 
events attending the death and Resurrection of Christ, 
seems, as in the previous case, to be far too exact to be 
accidental. 

(C.) THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH. 

_ Our last example shall be of a different kind from the 
others. It is that there exist in the Old Testament 
1 Matt. 27. 43. 


A604 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. XIx. — 


several passages which, taken in their plain literal 


meaning, state or imply that the future Messiah was to — 


be not only Superhuman, but Divine. And considering 
the strong Monotheism of the Jews this is very remark- 
able. The following are three of the most important :— 

‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ; 
and the government shall be upon his shoulder : and 
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty 
God, Everlasting Father, Prince, of Peace.’* Here we 
have a plain statement of the Divinity of One Who 
should be born a child. The two words translated 
Mighty God are incapable of any other translation ; 
and no other is suggested for them in the margin of 
either the Authorised or Revised Version, while the 
same two words occur in the next chapter, where they 
plainly mean Mighty God and nothing else. Moreover, 
the term Everlasting Father is literally Father of 
Eternity (see margin) and means the Eternal One. 
This is another divine title, and does not conflict with 
the Christian doctrine that it was the Son, and not the 
Father, Who became Incarnate. And it is significant 
that a few verses before it is implied that the Ministry 
of this future Messiah should commence in the land of 
Zebulon, and Naphtali, by the Sea of Galilee ; where, 
as a matter of fact, Christ’s Ministry did commence.? 

‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little 
to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall 
one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; 
whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.’ 
Here we have a prophecy of the birth of One who had 


1-Isa, 9.6; 10..25. 2° Isa; -9.) 1-2: 3 Mic. 5. 2. 


— 


- 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 465 


existed from everlasting ; thus showing the Pre-exist- 
ence and apparent Divinity of the Messiah, who was 
to be born at Bethlehem, where, again, as a matter of 
fact, Christ actually was born. 

‘ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against 
the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.’! 
The word translated fellow is only found elsewhere in 
Leviticus, where it is used eleven times, and is usually 
translated neighbour, and always implies an equality 
between the two. persons.2 Thus God speaks of the 
Shepherd who was to be slain with the sword (a term, 


as before said, used for any violent death), as equal 


with Himself, and yet at the same time Man; and, 
therefore, no one but a Messiah who is both God and 
Man—Fellow-God as well as fellow-man—can satisfy 
the language. 

And here again the reference to Christ is confirmed 
by the fact that not merely one, but a whole series of 
incidents in His Passion are also alluded to, in some of 
which His Divinity is likewise asserted. Thus He 
is introduced as the King of the Jews (or of Jerusalem’), 
which was emphatically His title at Passiontide ; for 
He was welcomed as such by the multitude, claimed 
to be such at His trial, was referred to as such by Pilate, 
was allowed to be such by those present, and as such 
was condemned, mocked, and crucified.4 And the 
same verse foretells the humble manner in which He 

1 Zech. 13. 7. 


Babiev, 56.2 > :18.90.:°19, TT, 15,17 3/24, 19.3, 25. 14,:16/ 17. 
3 Zech. 9. 9-11. 


Ee, Take, 19. 38; Mark 16. 2, 9, 12: John 19. 16; Mark 


WOe.20,. 37. 


30 


406 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. = cHapP. XIx 


(the Righteous Saviour) rode into Jerusalem on an 
ass, as well as the rejoicing with which He was received ; 
and this is followed by a reference to His future world- 
wide, though peaceful, dominion, and the new Covenant 
which He made by His blood. 

Later on we have the fact that He (the Lord 
Jehovah) should be sold for thirty pieces of silver, 
the money being cast down in the House of the Lord, ~ 
and afterwards given to the potter ; and also that He 
(again the Lord Jehovah) should have His Side 
pierced ; His Atonement for Sin ; His having (appar- 
ently). cast out unclean spirits ; His hands_ being 
wounded, and His being forsaken by His disciples.’ 

These are, it is true, expressed in figurative language, 
and often mixed up with other subjects, so that no 
single instance affords of itself a strong argument ; 
though the frequent repetition of the phrase in that day, 
which occurs seventeen times in these chapters (9-14), 
shows that there must be some real connection between 
them. And, anyhow, the fact of their all occurring so 
close together, and all leading up to the violent death 
of a man, who was yet the fellow, or equal, with God, can 
scarcely be due to accident. While a few verses 
further on there is a significant reference to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem (the previous siege, and its 
horrors, having been already alluded to), and also to 
the conversion of the Gentiles, the Lord Jehovah being 
recognised as King over all the earth.* 

The Divinity of the Messiah is also involved in some 


1 Mark 14. 24. 2 Zech. 11. 12-13; 12. 10; 13. 1-7. 
Zech: 14, 2.9; 12°25 Llvg 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 467 


hints which occur in the Old Testament as to the 
doctrine of the Trinity. This claims to be a fuller and 
more complete view of the Deity than the Monotheism 
of the Jews; but in no way inconsistent with it, for 
Christianity equally asserts that there is but one God % 
though it also affirms that in this Godhead there are 
three distinct Persons. 

Now it is, to say the least, a remarkable fact that 
this doctrine seems hinted at in the Old Testament. 
For instance, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is a 
plural word, though, strange to say, it generally takes 
a singular adjective and verb. Thus if we tried to 
represent it in English, the first verse of the Bible would 
read, ‘In the beginning the Gods, He created the 
heaven and the earth.’ Attempts have of course 
been made to reduce the significance of this by pointing 
out that a few other Hebrew words, such as lord and 
master, sometimes do the same, or by regarding it as 
a survival from some previous polytheistic religion, 
or else as being the plural of Majesty, a sort of royal 
We. This latter, however, does not seem to have been 
in use in early times, and never occurs in the Bible, 
where kings always speak of themselves in the 
singular.? 

But anyhow the fact remains that the Jews used a 
plural name for God with a singular verb. And this 
is rendered all the more striking because it often 
occurs in connection with another name, Jehovah, 
which is always singular; thus Jehovah Elohim, 
literally the Lord the Gods. The latter word, it may 

1 E.g., Gen. 41. 41 ; Ezra 6. T2e Van: 46 
30—z2 


” 


468 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHApP. XIX. 


be added, when used of false gods, takes a plural 
verb. 

Moreover, the Deity is at times represented as 
speaking in the plural number.‘ For instance, He 
says, Let us make man in our image, as if consulting 
with other Persons of the Godhead ; since it is obvious 
that the expression cannot refer to angels, or other 
beings, who are themselves created, and not fellow 
Creators. And yet just afterwards we read, * God 
made man in his own image,’ thus showing a unity as 
well as a plurality in the Godhead. Another and still 
more remarkable expression is, ‘ Behold, the man is 
become as one of us.’ This cannot possibly be ex- 
plained as a ‘ plural of Majesty’; for though a king 
might speak of himself as We or Us, no king ever 
spoke of himself as one of Us. Such an expression can 
only be used when there are other persons of similar 
rank with the speaker; and therefore when used by 
God, it necessarily implies that there are other Divine 
Persons. So again God is represented as saying, 
‘Whom shall J send, and who will go for us ?’ which 
also seems to indicate a plurality in unity ; while the 
preceding thrice Holy points to this being a Trinity.” 
The existence of such passages seems to require some 
explanation, and Christianity alone can explain them. 

(D.) CONCLUSION. 

Before concluding this chapter there is an important 
objection still to be considered. Why, it is said, if 
these prophecies really refer to Christ, are they not 
plainer ? Surely if God wished to foretell the future, 

1. Gen: 1.226 35 22h oe. 2 Isa. 6. Bs 


CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 469 


He would have done it better than this; and a few 
_ words added here and there would have made the 
reference to Christ indisputable. No doubt they would, 
but possibly God did not wish to make the reference 
indisputable. And perhaps if the prophecies had been 
plainer, they would have prevented their own fulfil- 
ment. Had the Jews known for certain that Christ was 
their Messiah, they could scarcely have crucified Him : 
and it seems to many that the prophecies are already 
about as plain as they could be without doing this. 

Moreover, the prophets, as far as we can judge, did 
not receive their revelations audibly and in a connected 
manner, but fell into a trance when they saw visions. 
And this explains many of the peculiarities of their 
writings. Future events are often represented in the 
present or past tense; future persons are addressed, 
and even pointed to as if on a stage (Behold, eto 
while at other times they are represented as speaking ; 
all of which tends to some obscurity. The important 
point, however, is not whether the prophecies might 
not have been plainer, but whether they are not already 
too plain to be accidental. 

Lastly, we must notice the cumulative nature of the 
evidence. We have only examined a few instances, 
but, as said before, Messianic prophecies of some kind. 
more or less distinct, occur at intervals all through the 
Old Testament. And though some of those commonly 
brought forward seem weak and fanciful, there are still 
numbers of others which are not. And here as else- 
where this has a double bearing on the argument. 

In the first place, it does not at all increase the 


470 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIX. - 


difficulty of the Christian interpretation ; for twenty 
prophecies are practically no more difficult to admit 
than two. Indeed, the fact that instead of being a few 
isolated examples, they form a complete series, rather 
lessens the difficulty than otherwise. 

On the other hand, it increases the difficulty of 
any other interpretation enormously ; for twenty 
prophecies are far more difficult to deny than two. If 
one is explained as a lucky coincidence, this will not 
account for the next; if that is got rid of by some 
unnatural interpretation of the words, it will not 
account for the third, and so on indefinitely. The 
difficulties are thus not only great in themselves, but 
are all cumulative; and hence together they seem 
insuperable. Anyhow, it is clear that these Prophecies 
afford a strong additional argument in favour of 
Christianity. 


Ee 


CHAPTER XX. 


THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 


The character of Christ can only be deduced from the New Testa- 
ment, any other Christ being purely imaginary. 

(A.) His TEACHING. 
(1.) Its admitted excellence. 
(2.) Two slight objections. 
(3.) His unconsciousness of sin ; so He must have been a 

perfect Man. 

(B.) His CLarms. 

He asserted— 


(1.) That He was Superhuman—claiming to be the Ruler, 
Redeemer, and Final Judge of the world. 

(2.) That He was Divine — claiming an Equality, Unity, 
and Pre-existence with God. 


(3.) And this is how all His contemporaries, both friends 
and foes, understood Him. 


(C.) THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE. 


Christ cannot, therefore, have been merely a good man ; 
He was either God, as He claimed to be, or else a bad 


man, for making such claims. But the latter view is 
disproved by His Moral Character. 


In this chapter we propose to consider the Character 

of Christ, and its bearing on the truth of Christianity. 

Now our knowledge of Christ’s character can only be 

derived from the four Gospels ; indeed, a Christ with 
471 


472 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XX. 


any other character assigned to Him is a purely 
imaginary being, and might as well be called by some 
other name. Taking, then, the Gospels as our guide, 
what is the character of Christ ? Obviously this can 
be best deduced from His own recorded teaching and 
claims, both of which are fortunately given at great 
length ; so we will consider these first, and then the 
eveat alternative which they force upon us. 

(A.) THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. 

Under this head we will first notice the admitted 
excellence of Christ’s teaching, then two objections 
which are sometimes made, and lastly His unconscious- 
ness of sin. 

(1.) Its admitted excellence. 

To begin with, the excellence of Christ’s moral 
teaching hardly needs to be insisted on at the present 
day; it is that now acknowledged by the civilised 
world. And rationalists as well as Christians have 
exhausted language to proclaim its merits. For in- 
stance, to quote a few examples :— 

‘Religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice 
in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and ~ 
guide of humanity ; nor even now would it be easy, 
even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of 
the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, 
than to endeavour so to live that Christ should approve 
our life. —J. S. Mall." 

‘Jesus remains to humanity an inexhaustible source 
of moral regenerations.’ And again, ‘ In Him is con- 


1 ‘Nature, the Unity of Religion and Theism,’ 2nd edit., 1874 
p- 255- 


CHRIST’S CHARACTER. 473 


densed all that is good and lofty in our nature.’— 
E. Renan. 

ee teaching of Jesus, however, carried morality 
to the sublimest point attained, or even attainable, 
by humanity.’ And again, ‘ He presented the rare 
spectacle of a life, so far as we can estimate it, uniformly 
noble and consistent with His own lofty principles.’— 
Author of ‘ Supernatural Religion’? 

‘ It was reserved for Christianity to present to the 
world an ideal character, which, through all the changes 
of eighteen centuries, has inspired the hearts of men 
with an impassioned love ; has shown itself capable of 
acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and con- 
ditions ; has been not only the highest pattern of 
virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice ; and 
has exercised so deep an influence that it may be 
truly said that the simple record of three short years of 
active life has done more to regenerate and to soften 
mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and 
all the exhortations of moralists.—W. E. H. Lecky.3 

These quotations are only samples of many which 
might be given ; but it is practically undisputed that 
the morality taught by Christ is the best the world has 
ever seen. And it is also undisputed that His life was 
in entire harmony with His teaching. He lived, as far 
as we can judge, a holy and blameless life, and His 
character has never been surpassed in history or fiction. 
He had no prototype, and has had no successor. 

* ‘Life of Jesus,’ New York, 1864, pp. 370, 375. 


2 2nd edit., vol. ii., p. 487. 
8 “History of European Morals,’ 3rd edit., 1877, vol. ii., p. 8. 


A474 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XX. 


(2.) Two slight objections. 

There are, however, two slight objections. The first 
is that Christ’s teaching was not original ; and, 
strictly speaking, this is perhaps true. Something 
similar to all He taught has been discovered in more 
ancient times, either in Egypt, India, China, or else- 
where. But this hardly affects the argument. An un- 
learned Jew living at Nazareth cannot be supposed to 
have derived his teaching from the works of Confucius, 
Zoroaster, and others, while it is a vast improvement 
on all of them put together. | 

The important point is, that there was nothing-among 
the Jews of His own time which could have produced, 
or even have invented, such a character. He was 
immeasurably better than all His contemporaries, and 
the attempts of some critics to show that His teaching 
was only a little superior to that of the Jewish Rabbis, 
from whom He is supposed to have learnt it, fail hope- 
lessly. For if the teaching was so similar, why has the 
effect been so different ? All the Rabbis put together 
have not exerted an influence on the world a thousandth 
part that of Christ. 

The second objection refers to certain portions of 
Christ’s teaching. For example, He advocates the 
non-resistance of evil, and seems to place virginity 
above marriage to an exaggerated extent.t I have 
never seen a satisfactory explanation of the latter 
passage ; but it is obvious on the face of it that it 
cannot be meant for universal application, or it would 
lead to the extinction of the human race. It can only 

1 Matt. 5. 39; 19. 12. 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 475 


be a counsel of perfection, similar to that of giving away 


the whole of one’s property. 
ain, several of the parables are said to be unjust, 


such as that of the wedding garment, the workmen 
in the vineyard, and the unrighteous steward. But 
parables cannot be pressed literally, and the interpre- 
tation put on these by different writers is so various 
that no valid objection can be founded on them. We 
will, however, consider the last, which is the one most 
often objected to. 

Here it will be remembered that though the steward 
had been apparently guilty of dishonesty, he was com- 
mended because he had done wisely.1_ But the idea 
that the parable was meant to advocate dishonesty is 
out of the question. Nor is the explanation hard to 
find. Suppose at the present day an ingenious robbery 
was committed, and a person said that he could not 
help admiring the scoundrel for his cleverness. This 
would not imply an approval of dishonesty, for two 
reasons ; partly because the man was still called a 
scoundrel, and partly because he was not praised as a 
whole, but a particular part of his conduct was singled 
out for admiration, which was not his dishonesty but 
his cleverness. So in the case before us. The steward 
was still called unrighteous, and only a part of his 
conduct was singled out for commendation, which was 
not his dishonesty but his wisdom. The obvious 
meaning is that wisdom is so desirable that it is to be 
commended even in worldly matters, and even in a 
bad cause ; and therefore still more to be aimed at in 

1 Luke 16. 8. 


476 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. xx. 


religious matters, and in a good cause. This objection, 
then, is quite untenable. The difficulties we meet with ~ 
are merely like spots on the sun, and would scarcely 
be thought difficulties in any other religion. 

(3.) Christ's unconsciousness of sin. 

A most remarkable point has now to be noticed. It 
is that, notwithstanding His perfect moral teaching, 
there is not in the character of Christ the slightest 
consciousness of stv. In all His numerous discourses, 
and even in His prayers, there is not a single word 
which implies that He thought He ever had done, 
or ever could do, anything wrong Himself. He is 
indeed most careful to avoid implying this, even inci- 
dentally. Thus He does not say, ‘If we forgive men 
their trespasses,’ etc., but ‘ Jf ye,’ as the former might 
imply that He, as well as they, had need of the Father’s 
forgiveness.1_ And He never even prayed (so far as we 
know) with His disciples ; His prayers as the Sinless 
One were so different from theirs as sinners, that they 
could not be blended together. Moreover, though 
He blamed self-righteousness in others, and exhorted 
them to repentance, He never hinted that He had any 
need of it Himself. 

And all this is the more striking when we reflect 
that good men are, as a rule, most conscious of their 
faults. But yet here was One who carried moral 
goodness to its utmost limit, whose precepts are ad- 
mittedly perfect, and yet who never for a moment 
thought that He was not fulfilling them Himself. 
Such a character is absolutely unique in the world’s 

1 Matt. 6. 14, 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 477 


aR It can only be explained by saying that 
Christ was not only a good man, but a ferfect man, 
since goodness without perfection would only have 
made Him more conscious of the faults He had. And 
yet if we admit this, we must admit more; for per- 
fection is not a human attribute, and needs a good deal 
of accounting for. 

(B.) THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST. 

We pass on now to the claims of Christ ; and His 
high moral character would plainly lead us to place 
the utmost confidence in what He said about Himself. 
Unfortunately, His statements are so well known that 
it is hard to appreciate their real force and significance. 
What, we must ask, would they have sounded like, 
and what would they have meant, when first uttered ? 
For He claimed, as we shall see, to be both Super- 
human and Divine; and this is how all His con- 
temporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him. 
And though it is impossible to add to the marvel of 
such claims, yet the fact that nothing in any way re- 
sembling them is to be found among the Jewish 
Prophets helps us at least to realise their uniqueness. 

(1.) Hts Claim to be Superhuman. 

This is shown by three main arguments, for Christ 
declared that He was the Ruler, Redeemer, and final 
Judge of the world. In the first place, Christ claimed 
to be the Ruler of the world, saying in so many words 
that all things had been delivered unto Him, and that 
He possessed all authority, both in heaven and on 
earth. Moreover, this dominion was to be equally com- 
plete over the hearts of His followers. Their loyalty 


478 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XX. © 


to Him was the one thing needful; and He claimed 
absolute self-surrender, even to giving up all human — 
ties, however close. 

Secondly, Christ claimed to be the Redeemer of the 
world. He distinctly asserted that He came to give 
His life a ransom for many, and that His blood was 
shed for the remission.of sins.? 

Thirdly, Christ claimed to be the final Judge of the 
world. This stupendous claim alone shows that He 
considered Himself quite above and distinct from the 
rest of mankind. While they were all to be judged 
according to their works, He was to be the Judge 
Himself, coming in the clouds of heaven with thousands 
of angels. And His decision was to be final and with- 
out appeal, and apparently based on a man’s behaviour 
towards Himself. And this tremendous claim, be it 
observed, does not depend on single texts or passages, 
but occurs all through the Synoptic Gospels.* Through- 
out the whole of His Ministry—from His Sermon on 
the Mount to His trial before Caiaphas—He per- 
sistently asserted that He was to be the final Judge of 
the world. It is hardly credible that a mere man, 
however presumptuous, should ever have made such a 
claim as this. Can we imagine anyone doing so at the 
present day? and what should we think of him if he did? 

The above passages show clearly the Superhuman 
character of Christ. They are, however, just capable 
of an Avian interpretation, which is, that though Christ 


1 Matt. 11. 27; 28. 18; Luke 10. 22; Matt. 10. 37. 

2 Matt. 20. 28 ; 26. 28; Mark 10. 45; 14. 24. 

3 Matt. 7. 22; 10. 32; 13. 41; 16. 13-16, 27; 19. 28; 24, 30; 
25. 31-46; 26. 64; and similar passages in the other Gospels. 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 479 


was far above men, and even angels, yet He was not, 
strictly speaking, God. But this opinion has few sup- 
porters at the present day; and persons who now 
admit that Christ was Superhuman generally admit 
that He was Divine, which, as we shall see, He also 
claimed to be. 

(2.) His Claim to be Divine. 

Like the preceding, this is shown by three main 
arguments ; for Christ declared His Equality, Unity, 
and Pre-existence with God. In the first place, Christ 
claimed an Equality with God. He distinctly asserted 
that the same honour should be given to Himself as to 
God the Father ; that men should Believe in Him as 
‘well as in God; that He and the Father would to- 
gether dwell in the souls of men ; and that He, like the 
Father, had the power of sending the Holy Spirit of 
God.* He also ordered that men were to be baptized 
into His Name_as well as into that of the Father, and 
_ promised that whenever and wherever His disciples 
were gathered together, He would be in the midst of 
them, even unto the end of the world, thus assuming a 
divine omnipresence.? 

Secondly, Christ claimed a Unity with God. He did 
not assert that He was another God, but said distinctly 
that He and the Father were One ,; that He was in the 
Father, and the Father in Him; that whoever beheld 
Him beheld the Father; and that whoever had seen 
Him had seen the Father.? These latter texts cannot, 


1 John 5. 23; 14. 1, 23; 16. 7; sec also 5. 18. 
2 Matt. 18. 20; 28. 19, 20. 
Pipohni Gao lye? Ycc ldo ro; 


480 THE TET ORS ANID CHAP. XX. 


of course, be pressed literally, as few would maintain 
that Christ was really God the Father. But just as if 
a human father and son were extremely alike, we might 
say that if you had seen the son, you had seen the 
- father ; so if Christ was truly God—God the Son—the 
express image of His Father, the same language might 
be used. It would at least be intelligible. But it 
would be quite unintelligible, if Christ was merely a 
good man. Can we imagine the best man that ever 
lived saying, If you have seen me, you have seen 
God? 

Thirdly, Christ claimed a Pre-existence with God. 
He asserted that*He had descended out of heaven ; 
that He had come down from heaven ; that He came 
out from the Father and was come into the world ; 
and that even before its creation He had shared God's 
glory. And in another passage, ‘ Before Abraham was, 
I am,? He not only claims pre-existence to Abraham, 
but implies that this was an eternal existence, irrespec- 
tive of time, since the words are not, Before Abraham 
was I was, but I am. While, the use of this latter 
phrase, which was the solemn name God gave Himself 
in the Old Testament, shows that the Speaker wished 
to represent Himself as being God. 

The above passages show plainly that Christ claimed 
to be Divine. On the other side we have the passage 
where He objects to the ruler calling Him good, saying 
that the word was only applicable to God.* But here 
He was probably not denying that He really was good, 


1 John 3.13% 6. 38:; 16.28 ;717.-5- 
2 John 8. 58; Exod. 3. 14. 3 Luke 18. 19. 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 481 


but merely showing the inconsistency of anyone calling 
Him so, who was not one of His disciples, and did not 
acknowledge His Divine claims. And it is interesting 
to note that when thus regarded as a mere earthly 
teacher, Christ refused to be called good. 

Some other texts are often quoted, but they obvi- 
ously refer to Christ’s human nature alone, and will be 
examined in Chapter XXIII. We need not consider 
them here, for if (as Christians believe) Christ was both 
God and Man, there is no difficulty in the fact that He 
should sometimes speak of Himself as Divine, and 
sometimes as human. It is precisely what we should 
expect on the Christian theory, though of course on 
any other it introduces an element of inconsistency 
into His character. Anyhow, it does not alter the fact 
that Christ did repeatedly claim to be both superhuman 
and Divine. 

(3.) How these Claims were understood at the time. 

We have now to consider how these claims were 
understood at the time. And first, as to Christ’s 
friends. We have overwhelming evidence that after 
His Resurrection all the disciples and early Christians 
believed their Master to be both superhuman and 
Divine. And to realise the full significance of this, 
we must remember that they were not polytheists, who 
did not mind how many gods they believed in, and 
were willing to deify Roman Emperors or anyone else ; 
but they were strict monotheists. They firmly believed 
that there was only one God, and yet they firmly be- 
lieved that Christ was Divine. This is shown throughout 
the New Testament. 


Ss. 


482 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XX 
For instance, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels } 
record His miraculous Birth, Resurrection, and Ascen- ) 
sion, as well as His numerous miracles, and other signs : 
of Divine power. And, as we have before pointed out, » : 
they always relate that Christ performed His miracles 
by His own authority, which seems to imply His 
Divinity, especially when combined with the fact that 
He could confer the power of. working miracles on 
others.* 
And as to the Fourth Gospel, it begins with asserting 
Christ’s Divinity in express terms, saying that the 
Word, who. afterwards became flesh, was God. And 
it appropriately ended, before the last chapter was 
added, with St. Thomas declaring this same belief, 
when he addressed Christ as my Lord and my God, 
which titles He fully accepted. And yet immediately 
afterwards, the author says he wrote his Gospel to 
convince men that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of 
God. Evidently then this expression, the Son of God, 
meant to him, and therefore presumably to other New 
Testament writers, who use it frequently, that Christ 
was truly God—God the Son—my Lord and my God— 
in the fullest and most complete sense. 
It is also worth noting that several passages, which 
in the Old Testament refer to Jehovah, are in the 
Gospels applied to Christ. Thus we read how, on one 
occasion, Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord of Hosts ; 
and St. John quotes some of the words, saying that 
Isaiah spoke them, when he saw Christ's glory.2 In 


1 Matt. 10. 8; Luke 9. 1. 2 John 1. 1; 20. 28. 
3 Isa. 6. 1-10; John 12. 41. 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 483 


the same way the Synoptic Gospels refer the prophecy 
as to the messenger of the Lord our God, to the messenger 
of Christ. 

With regard to the Acts a counter - argument is 
sometimes drawn from St. Peter’s speaking of Christ 
as “a man approved of God unto you by mighty 
works,’ etc., thus implying, it is urged, that St. Peter 
did not know Him to be more than man.?_ But as he 
says he was only appealing to what his hearers knew 
to be true (even as ye yourselves know), how else could 
he have put it? His hearers did not know that Christ 
was God ; they did know that He was a man approved 
of God by many wonderful miracles, because they had 
seen them. Moreover, in other places the Acts bear 
strong witness to the Divinity of Christ, both directly 
as when St. Paul speaks of the Church of God which 
He purchased with His own blood,? and indirectly as 
when the Apostles are represented as working their 
miracles, not in the Name of God the F ather, but in 
that of Christ.4 

Next, as to the Book of Revelation. The evidence 
this affords is important, because many critics® who 
dispute the genuineness of the Gospels and Acts, yet 
allow that this Book was written by St. John. And 
if so, it shows conclusively that one at leastvof Christ’s 
intimate followers firmly believed in His Divinity. For 
he not only speaks of Him as the object of universal 
worship both in heaven and on earth, but describes 


1 Isa, 40. 3; Matt. 3.3; Mark 1. 3; Luke 3. 4. 
2 Acts 2. 22, 3 Acts 20. 28. 
“VE .g., Acts: 3°64. 10. 


i 


5 £.g., the author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’ 
Lone 


484 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XX. 


_ Him as the Fvrst and the Last, which is the title used 
by God in the Old Testament, and which is plainly 
inapplicable to anyone else.t And we may ask, is it 
conceivable that an intimate friend of Christ should 
have believed him to be the Everlasting God, unless 
He had claimed to be so Himself, and had supported 
His claim by working miracles, and rising from the 
dead? Is it not, rather, certain that nothing but 
the most overwhelming proof would ever have con- 
vinced a Jew (of all persons) that a fellow Man, with 
whom he had lived for years, and whom he had seen 
put to death (and that in the very way which the Jews 
considered accursed of God), was Himself the Lord 
Jehovah.? 

Equally important evidence is afforded by St. Paul’s 
Epistles. For though he is not likely to have known 
Christ intimately, he must have been acquainted with 
numbers who did. And his early conversion, before 
A.D. 35, together with the fact that he had previously 
persecuted the Church at Jerusalem, and afterwards | 
visited some of the Apostles there, must have made 
him well acquainted with the Christian doctrines from 
the very first. Indeed, he tells us himself, that when 
he visited the Apostles, he laid before them the Gospel 
which he preached, so as to make sure that it was 
the same as what they preached.? And all through 
his Epistles he bears witness to the superhuman 
character of Christ; declaring, among other things, 
His sinlessness, and that He is the Ruler, Redeemer, 


1 Rey. 1.17, 183 2.8; 8 11-14 + 22012"14% Teak eae 
2 Deut, .01+ 234i) Gal 3313 3 Gal. 2.2, 9. 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 485 


and final Judge of the world, as well as being its 
Creator.} 

He also bears witness to His Divine character ; for 
he asserts more than once that God sent His Son into 
the world, thus showing the pre-existence of Christ. 
And he implies the same when he says that though 
Christ ‘was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor;’ 
the latter words referring to His condescension in 
becoming Man, when as God He had possessed all 
riches. While in other passages he asserts His 
Divinity in so many words, saying that He is over all, 
God blessed for ever ; that we shall all stand before the 
Judgment-seat of God, which elsewhere he calls the 
Judgment-seat of Christ ; that He was originally in the 
form of God (i.e., in a state of Deity), and on an 
equality with God, before He became incarnate, and 
took the form of Man; that in Him dwells all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead bodily ; that He is our great God 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us; 
and that the Psalmist prophesied of Him when he 
said, ‘ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’3 

This latter passage, from the Hebrews, was perhaps 
not written by St. Paul, but this makes it all the more 
valuable, as the Epistle is generally dated, from in- 
ternal evidence, before the destruction of Jerusalem, 
A.D. 70; and we have thus another early witness to - 
the Divinity of Christ ;—and a valuable one too, for 

1 2 Cor. 5. 16, 21; Rom. 14. 9; 1 Cor. 15. 3; 2 Cor, 5 Toeeae 
116: 

2 Rom. 8. 3; Gal. 4. 4; 2 Cor. 8. 9. 


S Rom. 9.5; 14. 10; 2 Cor. 5. 10 *- Phil. 2. 6+ Col! 2, oO -"Titie 
meta. Teb. I. 8. 


486 THE. TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XX, 


he distinctly implies that there was nothing new in the 
doctrine, but that it had been believed by Christians 
from the very first.? 

The most important text on the other side is where © 
St. Paul says there is one God the Father, and one Lord 
Jesus Christ,2, which is quoted in the Nicene Creed. 
But though the statement is a difficult one, it cannot 
be pressed as implying that Christ is not God ; for if 
so it would equally imply that the Father was not Lord, 
which few would contend was St. Paul’s meaning. 

With-regard to the above passages, many of which 
occur in the admittedly genuine Epistles, it is important 
to notice that the allusions are all incidental. St. Paul 
does not attempt to prove the superhuman and Divine 
character of Christ, but refers to it as if it were undis- 
puted. He evidently believed it himself, and took for 
granted that his readers did so too. And his readers 
were not private individuals, but large bodies of Chris- 
tians. They included his own converts at Corinth and 
elsewhere, the converts of other Apostles at Rome, 
which was a place he had not then visited, and a 
strong party of opponents in Galatia, with whom he 
was arguing. It is clear, then, that these doctrines 
were not peculiar to St. Paul, but were the common 
property of all Christians from the earliest times. And 
when combined with the previous evidence, this leaves 
no doubt as to how Christ’s frzends understood His 
claims. Whatever they may have thought of them 
before the Resurrection, that event convinced them that 
they were true, and they never hesitated in this belief. 

1“ Heb/ 2. 1-4; 4. 14. 2 1 Cor. 8.6; Eph. 4. 4-6. 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 487 


But next as to Christ’s foes. The evidence here is 
equally convincing. In St. John’s Gospel we read 
that on several occasions during His life, when Christ 
asserted His superhuman and Divine character, the 
Jews wanted to kill Him in consequence ; often avow- 
ing their reason for doing so with the utmost frankness. 
‘ Fora good work we stone thee not, bu t for blasphemy 
and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself 
God.’ And in thus doing they were only acting in 
accordance with their law, which expressly commanded 
a blasphemer to be stoned. 

In none of these instances, it is to be noticed, did 
Christ repudiate the claims attributed to Him, or say 
He had been misunderstood. In fact, in only one case 
did He offer any explanation whatever. He then ap- 
pealed to the passage in the Old Testament, ‘I said, 
Ye are gods,’ and asserted that He was much better 
entitled to the term, since He was sent into the world 
by the Father, and did the works of the Father. And 
He then reasserted His unity with the Father, which 
was the very point objected to by the Jews. 

Moreover, not only during His life did Christ make 
these claims to be Divine, but He persevered with them 
even when it brought about His death. It is undis- 
puted that the Jews judged Him worthy of death for 
blasphemy, and for nothing else. This is the teaching 
not of one Gospel alone, but of each of the four.2 
Every biography of Christ we possess represents this 
as the real charge against Him; though, of course, 


1 John 10. 33; see also 5. 18; 8. 59; 11. 8; Lev. 24, 16. 
2 Matt. 26. 65 ; Mark 14. 64; Luke 22. 71; John 19, v5 


488 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XX. 


when tried before the Roman governor that of dis- 
loyalty to Cesar was brought up as well. 

There is but one conclusion to be drawn from all 
this, It is that Christ did really claim to be both 
superhuman and Divine: that He deliberately and 
repeatedly asserted these claims during His life; that 
the hostility of the Jews was thereby aroused, who 
frequently wanted to kill Him ; that He never repudi- 
ated these claims, but, on the contrary, persevered 
with them to the end; and was finally put to death 
in consequence. 

(C.) THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE, 

We pass on now to the great alternative, which is 
forced upon us by combining the teaching and the 
claims of Christ. Before pointing out its importance, 
we must notice a favourite method of trying to evade 
the difficulty, which is by saying that the teaching of 
Christ occurs in the Synoptic Gospels, and the claims 
in the Fourth ; so that if we deny the accuracy of this 
single Gospel the difficulty is solved. But unfortu- 
nately for this objection, though the Divine claims 
occur chiefly in the Fourth Gospel, the superhuman 
claims are most prominent in the other three ; and we 
have purposely chosen all the passages illustrating 
them from the Synoptic Gospels alone. And these 
claims are equally fatal to His moral character if He 
were only aman. For no good man, and indeed very 
few bad ones, could be so fearfully presumptuous as 
to claim to be the absolute Ruler of the world, still 
less to be its Redeemer, and, least of all, to be its one 
and only Judge hereafter, 


CHRIST'S CHARACTER, ~ 489 


This objection, then, must be put aside, and we are 
forced to conclude that the perfect moral teaching of 
Christ was accompanied by continual assertions of His 
own superhuman and Divine character. And as this 
is a point about which He must have known, it is 
clear that the statements must have been either true 
or intentionally false. He must, therefore, have been 
Divine, or else a deliberate impostor. In other words, 
the Christ of the Gospels—and history knows of no 
other—could not have been merely a good man. He 
was either God as He claimed to be, or else a bad man 
for making such claims. This is the Great Alternative. 

Moreover, it is absolutely unique in the world’s 
history. The founders of other religions may have 
had great moral virtues,’ and may yet have taught 


' erroneous doctrines ; but, as a rule, there is no reason 


for doubting their sincerity ; they believed what they 
said. Of course there have been religious impostors as 
well, but then their moral character was at fault. In 
Christ alone we have a Man Whose moral character and 
teaching have fascinated the world for centuries ; and 
yet Who, unless His own claims were true, must have 
been guilty of the grossest egotism, falsehood, and 
blasphemy. This is the only logical conclusion to be 
drawn from the facts we have been considering, and 
all attempts to evade it fail hopelessly. 

Now what effect has this on our present inquiry as 
to the truth of Christianity? Plainly it affords a 
strong argument in its favour. For the moral teaching 
of its Founder is shown to be not only the most perfect 
the world has ever seen, but combined with a sense of 


490 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. xx. _ 


- 


entire sinlessness which is absolutely unique among 
men. Both of these, however, are combined with 
claims to a superhuman and Divine character, which, 
unless they are correct, place their Author at the 
opposite extreme of the moral scale. In short, unless 
Christianity is true, its Founder must have been not 
only the very best of men, but also one of the very 
worst , and this is a dilemma from which there is no 
escape. | 


: 
. 
: 
s 
x 
‘ 
Sa 
. 


t 


“ee 


NY 


be 


CHAPTER XXII. 


THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONFIRMS 
ITS “TRUTH: 


(A.) Irs Earty Triumpus. 


(1.) Its enormous difficulties. 

(2.) Its marvellous success. 

(3.) The so-called natural causes of success : they all imply 
the truth of the Religion. 

(4.) Contrast with Mahometanism. 


(B.) Its SuBsEQUENT History. 

(1.) Its vitality in the past ; very remarkable. 

(2.) Its effect at the present ; very beneficial. 

(3-) Its prospects in the future ; very hopeful. Objection 
from Rationalism ; but this is no new difficulty, 
while it shows the strength of Christianity, and 
being only destructive, can never take its place. 


(C.) CONCLUSION. 


The history of Christianity, which seems to have been 
foreknown to its Founder, affords a strong argument in 
its favour. 


THE argument we have next to consider is that derived 
from the History of Christianity. This religion, it 
must be remembered, originated, spread over, and 
finally conquered the civilised world in an historical 
age. 
be disputed nor ignored, it must be accounted for. 
_ How is it that an obscure Jewish Peasant, who was 


And since the fact of this conquest can neither 


491 


492 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXI. 


crucified as a malefactor, some nineteen centuries ago, 
should now be worshipped, by over three hundred 
million persons, including all the most civilised nations 
of the world? As a mere historical problem, this 
requires some solution, for an effect in History, as 
elsewhere, must have an adequate cause. And it is 
scarcely too much to say that this is the most remark- 
able effect in the history of mankind. Here, then, is 
the subject we have to discuss ; and we will first con- 
sider the early triumphs of Christianity, and then its 
subsequent history.* 

(A.) Irs EarLty TRIUMPHS. 

Now it seems hard to exaggerate either the enormous 
difficulties the Religion had to overcome, or its mar- 
vellous success in overcoming them. 

(1.) Its enormous difficulties. 

In the first place, we must consider the immense 
difficulties of founding such a religion as Christianity. 
Our familiarity with the subject prevents us from fully 
realising this, so perhaps an analogy will help to make 
itclear. Suppose, then, that missionaries now appeared 
in the cities of Europe, in London and Edinburgh, for 
example, and preached that an obscure peasant, who 
had been put to death somewhere in Persia as a male- 
factor, had risen from the dead, and was the God of 
heaven and earth. What chance would they have of 
making a single convert ? And yet the enterprise of 
first preaching Christianity at Rome or Athens must 
have been very similar to this, only far more dangerous. 
Indeed, it is hard to over-estimate the difficulties of 
founding a religion whose principal doctrine was that 


——————————— _* © 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 493 


of a crucified Saviour. And be it remembered, this 
doctrine was never shirked by the early Christians ; 
St. Paul preached it boldly, though admitting that it 
was a stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to 
the Gentiles.1 And all this took place among highly 
civilised nations, and in a literary, one might almost 
say a rationalistic, age ; when the old pagan religions 
were being abandoned, because men could no longer 
believe in them. What, then, must have been the 
difficulty of introducing a new Religion, which was 
(apparently) more absurd than any of them, and wor- 
shipped One Who had been crucified ? 

Moreover, Christianity had many other difficulties to 
contend with. It was anti-Jewish in its comprehen- 
siveness, for it abolished all their religious rights and 
privileges, and proclaimed that the despised Gentiles 
were henceforth to be their equals. It was anti-Pagan 
in its absolute claims ; for it was a religion which could 
‘stand no rival, and its success meant the destruction of 
every heathen altar, the execration of every heathen 
god. And it could be easily represented as anti- 
Roman ; for one of the charges brought against its 
Founder was that of disloyalty to Cesar, and a similar 
charge was made against its preachers at Thessalonica. 

Lastly, it had as great difficulties to contend with 
from a moral point of view. For Christianity was a 
religion of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and such a re- 
ligion does not naturally commend itself to mankind. 
Moreover, this aspect of the Religion was always 
brought prominently forward by its preachers. A 


tem Corel aos: 


494 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXI. 


forsaking of sin was its moral requisite, just as a belief 
in Christ’s atonement for sin was its mental requisite ; 
and the difficulty of either alone might well have 
seemed insuperable. 

(2.) Its marvellous success. , 

And yet, in spite of every difficulty, Christianity 


prevailed. The new religion spread with great rapidity. — 


This we learn not only from Christian writers, who 
might be thought to exaggerate, but from impartial 
men such as Suetonius, Tacitus, and the younger Pliny. 
The former says that in the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41— 
54) the Jews in Rome, stirred up by one Chrestus (t.e., 
Christian Jews), were so numerous that the Emperor 
thought it expedient to banish them; Tacitus says 
that at the time of the great fire (A.D. 64) a vast mul- 
titude of Christians were discovered at Rome; while 
Pliny, one of the Roman governors in Asia Minor, 
complained to the Emperor Trajan that the Christians 
were so numerous that the temples had long been 
deserted, though at the time he wrote (A.D. 105) they 
were being frequented again. And he also bears 
witness to the exemplary lives of the Christians, who 
he says included men of every rank, in life, their in- 
vincible fidelity to their religion, and the divine wor- 
ship they paid to Christ. And as the religion did not 
originate in either Rome or Asia Minor, Christians were 
presumably as numerous elsewhere. 

Nor can it be said that they were only to be found 
among the poor and ignorant ; for not only have we 
the testimony of Pliny just alluded to, but the undis- 
puted Epistles of St. Paul, such as that to the Romans, 


= 


~~ 


\ 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 495 


show (as pointed out in Chapter XVII.) that he thought 
his readers well educated, and quite able to follow a 
difficult argument. 

And even the passage that not many mighty, not 
many noble, were Christians,t which is often quoted 
in an opposite sense, really supports this view; for 
it implies that though not many, there were certainly 


some, to whom these terms might be applied. While 


elsewhere we have the names of some eminent con- 
verts, such as Erastus the chamberlain of the city at 
Corinth, Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens, and 
Theophilus a man of high rank (as is shown by the title 


_ Most excellent); none of whom are likely to have 


accepted Christianity without strong evidence.2 

Now what was the cause of this wonderful progress ? 
It is easy to say what was not its cause. Physical force 
and the authority of the Government had nothing to 
do with it. Its missionaries did not preach sword in 
hand, nor were they backed up by the civil power. . All 


_ they did, all they could do, was to appeal to man’s 


reason and conscience, and this appeal was successful. 
And we learn from the Christians themselves, e.g., in 
the Acts, that there were two main reasons for this. 


_ The first was the confident appeal to the facts of 


Christianity, such as the Resurrection of Christ, as 
undisputed and indisputable ; and the second was the 
occasional aid of miracles. And the more we reflect on 
the subject, the more difficult it is to account for it 
without at least one of these causes. For the spread of 
Christianity was not like that of a mere philosophy, or 
#51 Cor. 1:26. “Rom. 16,23; Acts 17. 343 1. 1; 23.26; 24. 3. 


496 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXI. 


system of ethics, or scientific theory. It depended 
entirely on certain alleged matters of fact, which facts 
were quite recent at the time of its origin, occurred at 
the very place where it was first preached, and were 
open to the hostile criticism of an entire nation. This, 
it is needless to add, is without a parallel in history. 

But it is said, notwithstanding this rapid progress at 
first, Christianity took nearly three centuries to conquer 
the civilised world. Undoubtedly it did, but the 
significance of the conquest is not diminished by this. 
It is rather increased when we remember that at 
intervals all through this period the Church suffered 
the fiercest persecution. That it should have survived 
such a fearfully prolonged struggle, and have finally 
conquered, does but show its inherent strength. We 
may look in vain for any analogy to this in the rest of 
history. No other religion has ever withstood such 
persistent attacks ; no other religion has ever obtained 
such a complete and almost incredible triumph, the 
Emperor of the civilised world being brought to wor- 
ship One Who had been crucified as a malefactor. In 
short, the progress of Christianity was as unique as 
its origin, and _can only be satisfactorily accounted for 
by its truth. 

(3.) The so-called natural causes of success. 

We must next glance at some natural causes which 
_ have been alleged as accounting for the wonderful 
spread of Christianity. Those brought forward by 
Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 
(Chapter XV.) are five in number; and he seems to 
think that when combined, they will account for the 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 407 


spread of Christianity. But, in the first place, how are 
we to account for their combination ? They are of the 
most varied character, and even assuming for the 
moment that they had the result claimed for them, the 
fact that such various causes should all unite at the 
same time to favour Christianity seems a coincidence 
far too remarkable to be accidental. Moreover, when 
we examine them in detail, it will be found that they 
one and all imply the truth’of the religion. 

The five causes are, first, the intense zeal of the early 
Christians. And doubtless this was a most important 
element in spreading their religion. But what gave 
them this intense zeal? What was it that made them 
so fearfully in earnest about their new religion, that 
they broke from all earthly ties and faced a life of 
suffering, and a death of martyrdom in preaching it ? 
There can be but one answer to this question. It was 
because they were so absolutely convinced of its truth. 
It was vouched for by what they considered over- 
whelming evidence, so they willingly risked everything 
forit. Their zeal, then, is but evidence for their con- 
2 viction, and their conviction is but evidence for the 
truth of what they were convinced of: and valuable 
evidence, too, for they plainly had much better means 
of knowing about it than we can possibly have. 

Secondly, we have the doctrine of a future life, with 
rewards and punishments. And doubtless this also 
had much to do with the success of Christianity. A 
longing for immortality seems inherent in man, and 
the vague guesses of heathen philosophers were quite 
unable to satisfy this. It might be true that men 

: 25 


408 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXI. 


should rise again, but that was all they could say. 
Christianity alone, resting on the actual fact of Christ’s 
Resurrection, said it was true ; so here men found the 
assurance they wanted. But is it likely that Chris- 
tianity should have so thoroughly satisfied them in this 
respect had there been any real doubt as to Christ’s 
Resurrection ? 

Thirdly, come the miracles ascribed to the early 
Christians. Gibbon’s argument here is more difficult 
to follow. If these miracles were actually true, of 
course they would have greatly assisted the new 
religion ; but then they would have been, not a natural 
but a supernatural cause of success. If on the other 
hand, the miracles were false, it is hard to see how the 
early Christians could have helped their religion by 
claiming miraculous powers which they did not possess, 
and which their contemporaries must have known they 
did not possess. 

Fourthly, we have the pure morality taught and 
practised by the early Christians. And this had, of 
course, much to do with helping their religion. But 
again we must, ask, what was it that enabled the 
Christians alone in that age of vice and wickedness to 
lead pure lives? They ascribed it themselves to the 
example and power of their Founder, and nothing else 
can really account for it. Christian morality cannot 
be a stream without a source, and no other source can 
be assigned to it. But could a mere human teacher 
have had this more than human influence over thou- 
sands of converts, most of whom had never seen him ? 

Lastly, comes the union and discipline of the early 


Se 


4 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 499 


Church. This may have helped Christianity in the 
later stages of the struggle, but could obviously have 
been of little use at the commencement. Moreover, 
why should Christians of various nations and classes 
have been so thoroughly united in this one matter 
unless they were convinced of’ its overwhelming im- 
portance ? On the whole, then, these so-called natural 
causes are only secondary causes in the strict sense of 
the term. The truth of the religion is what they all 
imply, and this is the real cause which alone can account 
for its success. 4 
A better way of explaining the spread of Christianity, 


though still inadequate, is now often adopted ; which 


is by saying that it arose at a favourable crisis. The 
dispersion of the Jews throughout the known world 
would, it is urged, have facilitated the spread of a 
religion founded by Jews. The speculations of the 
Greeks as to a Divine Word, or Logos, would have pre- 
vented the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarna- 
tion, from forming any great difficulty to the learned 
classes. While the mass of the people were disgusted 
with the old mythologies of Greece and Rome. These 
were dying out, because they failed to satisfy human 
nature, and men were longing for something better. 
They wanted, as men always will want, a religion ; but 
they wanted it free from the absurdities and immo- 
ralities of Pagan worship. Christianity then appeared, 


_ and as it was found by many to meet the demand, it 


naturally succeeded. 
But in answer to this it must be remembered that 
Christianity was not a philosophy founded at Rome or 


32—2 


500 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XXI. 


Athens, in which case it might perhaps be said that 
the demand caused the supply ; but it arose as a small 
Jewish sect, basing its doctrines on the actual life of 
its Founder. While the fierce persecutions it had to 
endure show that it did not obviously meet the re- 
quirements of the day, even apart from the tremendous 
difficulties involved in the worship of the Crucified. 

But now suppose, for the sake of argument, that this 
had been otherwise, and that the world was so suited 
to receive Christianity as to account for its rapid 
spread; would the inference be against its Divine 
origin? Certainly not ; for the agreement in this case 
would be far too close to be accidental. It would show 
design, and precisely such design as we should expect 
if the Religion were true. Anyone who believes in the 
Divine government of the world would naturally expect 
the true Religion to be introduced at a suitable time ; 
and thus the correspondence would merely show that 
the God Who rules in history is also the God Who 
introduced Christianity. So here again the proposed 
explanation, even if admitted, does but imply the truth 
of the Religion. | 

(4.) Contrast with Mahometanism. 

And this conclusion is rendered still stronger when 
we contrast the spread of Christianity with that of 
Mahometanism. For here we have the one example 
history affords of the spread of a religion which can 
be compared with that of Christianity. And yet the 
contrast between the two is very marked, whether we 
consider their method of progress or their alleged 
evidence of truthfulness. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 501 


And first as to the method of progress. For thirteen 
years Mahomet appealed to man’s reason alone, and 
made remarkably few converts. After this failure of 


_ peaceful means he appealed to force, and from this 


time his religion spread rapidly. But its progress has 
no analogy whatever to that of Christianity, as the 
means employed were just the opposite. In the 
one case, all we have to account for is that Mahomet 
should be able to collect an army, that that army 
should conquer, and that the conquered should adopt 
the religion of their conquerors, about which they were 
often given no option. Conquest and conversion went 
together, and there is scarcely an instance in history of 
a nation embracing the Mahometan religion, without 
being first conquered by a Mahometan army. And 
as Mahomet appealed at times to the lower passions 
of men, allowing, for instance, himself and his fol- 
lowers several wives, his success is not very surprising, 
In the spread of Christianity, on the other hand, no 


_ force whatever was employed, and, as we have seen, 


it had enormous difficulties to contend with. The 
contrast, then, between the two is just what we should 
expect between the natural and the supernatural 
spread of a religion, the one advancing by worldly 
power, the other in spite of it. 

But an even greater contrast has still to be noticed, 
which is that Mahomet did not appeal to evidential 
miracles in support of his claims—that is, to outward 
matters of fact capable of being judged of by other 
people. And this is the more remarkable since he 
tefers to the miracles of previous prophets, including 


502 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXI, 


those of Christ, as authentic, but never pretends to 
have worked any himself. The obvious conclusion 1S 
that he felt, as all men must feel, the overwhelming 
difficulty of asserting public miracles if none occurred, 
and he therefore appealed to force, because he had 
nothing else to appeal to. And yet that the first 
preachers of Christianity asserted such miracles is, as 
we have seen, undeniable. They were not advocates 
of a creed, but witnesses for certain facts, such as 
the Resurrection and other miracles, which they 
believed they actually saw. There is nothing corre- 
sponding to this in regard to Mahometanism or any 
other religion. It may still be said that Mahometanism 
shows that a religion can make rapid progress without 
miracles. Of course it does; and so does Buddhism, 
which also spread rapidly. But it does not show 
that a religion which, like Christianity, claims to rest 
on miracles can make its way if those miracles are 
false. 

(B.) Irs SUBSEQUENT HIsTORY. 

We pass on now from the early triumphs of Christi- 
anity to its subsequent history, and will consider in 
turn its past vitality, its present effect, and its future 
prospects. 

(x.) Its vitality in the past. 

To begin with, a strong argument in its favour is its 
vitality. It has survived in spite of external assaults 
and internal schisms, and its spread and continuity can 
only be satisfactorily accounted for by its truth. This 
is an argument the force of which increases as time 


1 Koran, Sura. v. 


—_— —_. 
° hay 

Ae * 

’ 4. % 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 503 


goes on, and fresh difficulties are encountered and 
overcome. Of course it may be said this is merely a 
case of survival of the fittest, and only shows that of 


_ all early religions Christianity is the one most fitted to 


survive. But this is only another way of saying that 
it is the one most adapted to human nature, which, if 
true, is a strong argument in its favour. 

Moreover, the social state of the world has changed 
immensely, and yet Christianity has always kept in 
touch with it. It has shown itself suitable for different 
ages, countries, and social conditions, and, unlike 
other religions, is still in sympathy with the highest 
forms of civilisation. In short, Christianity has kept 
possession of the civilised world for over fifteen cen- 
turies, and is as vigorous in its age as in its youth. 
Its long reign is indeed so familiar to us that there is 
a danger of missing its importance. Can we imagine 
a man now who should found a religion which well- 
nigh two thousand years hence should be still flourish- 
ing, still aggressive, and still recognising him not only 
as its founder but its God? And yet this would be 
but a parallel case to that of Christianity. Amid all 
the changes in history it alone has remained un- 
changed. Its doctrines, at least the important ones, 
contained in the Creeds, have been the same century 
after century, and its Founder is still worshipped by 
millions. 

(2.) Its effect at the present. 

In close connection with the history of Christianity 


‘comes its effect on the world. A religion which has 


reigned so long, and over the most civilised nations, 


504 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXI. 


must necessarily have had some influence for good or 
evil. And with regard to Christianity there can be 
little doubt as to the answer. The present state of the 
civilised world is a standing witness to its benefits, 
since nearly all our moral superiority to the nations of 
old is due to this religion. 

For example, it has entirely altered the position of 
women, who are no longer looked down upon as they 
used to be. It has also altered the position of children, 
who were formerly considered as property, and at the 
disposal of their parents, infanticide being of course 
common. Again, it has changed our ideas as to the 
sick, a hospital being almost entirely a Christian in- 
vention. It has also changed our ideas about work. 
In all the nations of antiquity, and in non-Christian 
countries of the present day, a workman is looked 
down upon. Once more, it has created a respect for 
human life as such, and apart from the position of 
the individual person, which was unknown in ancient 
times. In short, our acknowledgment of what are 
called the vights of man is almost entirely due to 
Christianity. Nor is there anything surprising in this ; 
for the common Fatherhood of God and the common 
love of Christ naturally afford the strongest argument 
for the common rights of man. And though Chris- 
tianity did not, and could not at first, suppress slavery 
and war, it greatly mitigated their evils from the 
beginning, and is slowly destroying them. 

These are but samples of the effects of Christianity ; 
and that they are really such, and are not merely due 
to civilisation, is shown conclusively by ancient Rome. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 505 


Here civilisation was carried to a great height, and 


- literature and the fine arts flourished ; and yet all the 


time there were the greatest moral vices, not to men- 
tion the barbarous treatment of captives and the 
combats of gladiators. And though, no doubt, various 
causes have contributed to the improvement of man- 
kind, the teaching of Christ has certainly been the 
most important. The obvious and public good which 
Christianity has done is thus indisputable. 

Moreover, another, and perhaps the greater, part of 
its influence is of such a kind as not to appear much in 
history. Christianity may have promoted the happi- 
ness, increased the virtues, and lessened the vices of 
millions of men in their private lives without history 
recording it. Nor can it be doubted that it actually 
has done so from the very commencement. For the 
undisputed Epistles of St. Paul show that many of his 
converts were reclaimed from the vilest wickedness.! 

But it may be said, though Christianity has done so 
much good, has it not also done some harm? What 
about the religious wars and persecutions in the 
Middle Ages? But with regard to the wars, religion 
was, as a rule, the excuse rather than the cause; for 


had Christianity never been heard of, there would 


doubtless have been numerous wars in the Middle Ages, 
as in all other ages. With regard to the persecutions, 
they must, of course, be both admitted and deplored ; 
but we may ask, what religion except Christianity 
could have been mixed up with such persecutions, and 


yet have escaped the odium of mankind? Christianity 


Pea tore Be O~4 x 


506 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XX. 


has done so, because men have seen that it was not the 
religion itself, but its false friends who were responsible 
for the persecutions. The important fact is that the 
New Testament, unlike the Koran,! does not authorise, 
still less command, the employment of force in gaining 
converts. 

We now turn to another aspect of the subject. Not 
only has Christianity done much good in the past, but 
it is doing much good at the present. This also is 
beyond dispute ; everyone can verify the fact for him- 
self. Thousands of men and women spend their 
lives in self-sacrifice among the poor and sick solely 
for the sake of Christ. Of course, it may be said that 
all this is folly, and that we ought to try and benefit 
our fellow-men for their own sake, or for the sake of 
the State. But, whether folly or not, the fact remains. 
The vast majority of those who visit the poor and sick 
do not do so for the sake of the State, or even mainly 
for the sake of the poor themselves, but from avowedly 
Christian motives. They believe that Christ loves these 
poor, and therefore they love them too, and willingly 
spend their lives, in trying to help them. 

And it is also a fact that this stvange attraction 
which Christ exercises over the hearts of men is 
unique in history. Can we imagine anyone spending 
his life in visiting the sick in some large town, and 
saying that he is doing it for the love of David, or of 
Plato, or of Mahomet? And yet all through the 
civilised world thousands are doing it for the love of 
Christ. And this influence, be it observed, is not like 


1>Koran, Sura. Via 12}: i0.-5.5 xiv, 


EBM 
. ‘0 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 507 


that of other great men, local and temporary, but 
world-wide and permanent. Christ is thus not only, 
as we saw in the last chapter, the holiest of men, but 


the mightiest of men also; the Man in short who has 


most influenced mankind. And with trifling excep- 
tions, few will dispute that this influence has been 
wholly for good. So that the belief in the God Incar- 
nate has done more to improve the world, than the 
belief in the God of Nature, or the God of the Jews, 
or any other religion past or present. And therefore, 
judged by its fruits, Christianity is a religion which 
might very reasonably have had a divine origin. 

On the other hand, it must. be admitted that though 
Christianity has done so much good, it has not entirely 
reformed the world; and its failure to do this, after 
trying for so many centuries, is thought by some to 
be adverse to its claims. But others think that its 
partial success and partial failure are just what we 
should expect if it were true. And what is more to 


the point, this seems to have been expected by its 
. Founder, for He always implied that the good and 


the evil—the wheat and the tares—were to be mixed 
together until the end of the world. Moreover, reform- 
ing this world is not the sole object of Christianity. 
Its chief purpose is to prepare men for another world ; 
and therefore, until we know the condition of its 
adherents in the future state, we cannot say how far 
it has been successful. While as to its so-called 
failure, this has been entirely due to the inconsistency 
of its adherents. If all men were Christians, and all 
Christians lived up to the religion they professed, there 


508 - THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHAP. xx. 


would be little to complain of even in this imperfect 
- world. | ; 

On the whole, then, the effect of Christianity is 
distinctly in its favour. It has done much good, and 
will probably do more as time goes on ; though it has 
not entirely reformed the world, and probably never 
will. But the good it has done is an actual fact 
which cannot be disputed, while the counter-argument 
that it ought to have done more good is at least open 
to doubt. 

(3.) Lts prospects in the future. 

Lastly, the spread of Christianity seems likely to — 
continue, and some day we may expect to see it 
universally professed in the world, as it is in Western 
Europe at the present time, though, of course, there 
will always be individuals who dissent from it. The 
reasons for this confident hope are, that, speaking 
broadly, Christian nations alone are extending their 
influence. If, as is sometimes said, Christianity only 
rules in three continents out of five (Europe, America, — 
and Australia), it is equally true that the future of 
the world seems to depend on these continents alone. 
Japan may, of course, be quoted as an exception, but 
strange to say Japan seems to be becoming Christian. 

And to this must be added the fact that Christian 
missions are now being revived to a large extent, 
and, though they are not always successful, yet, taken 
together, they secure a good many converts. More- 
over, there is no other side to this argument. It is 
not that Christianity is being adopted in some countries 
and renounced in others. The gains, whether great or 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 509 


small, are all net profits. With one exception, there is 
not a single instance for many centuries of a nation or 
tribe which once adopted Christianity changing its 
religion to anything else. And the exception, that of 
France at the time of the Revolution, strikingly proves 
the rule ; for the change could not be maintained, and 
in a few years Christianity reasserted itself throughout 
the country. 

But an important objection has now to be examined. 
It is said that in Christian countries an increasingly 
large number of men either openly reject Christianity 
or give it a mere nominal approval. This may be 
called the objection from the spread of Rationalism, 
and it is an important one, because it is an attempt to 
meet Christianity with its own weapons, an appeal to 
reason. Of course it must be remembered that a great 
deal of the infidelity of the present day is not caused 
by reasoning at all, but by the want of it ; and it is 
hopeless to argue against this. For how can men be 
convinced of Christianity or anything else if they will 
not take the trouble to examine its claims ? 

But putting aside this class, for whom the present 
Essay is obviously not intended, there are still many 
men who may fairly be called Rationalists—men, that 
is, who have studied both sides of the subject, and 
whose reasoning leads them to reject Christianity. 
They admit that there is evidence in its favour, but 
they say that it is far from convincing. And it is 
believed by many that Rationalism is spreading at the 
present day, and will ultimately become common 
among thoughtful men. Now, of course, the whole of 


510 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XXI. 


this Essay is really an attempt to meet this objection, 
and to show that, when carefully considered, the argu- 
ments in favour of Christianity far outweigh those 
against it. But three additional remarks may be 
made here. 


The first is, that this is no new difficulty. Rational- 


ism has existed ever since the Middle Ages, and was 
most aggressive and most confident in the eighteenth 
century, as a single quotation will show. Bishop 
Butler in the preface to his Analogy of Religion, 1736, 
says, ‘It has come, I know not how, to be taken for 
granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so 
much as a subject of inquiry, but that it is now at length 
discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat 
it as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point 
‘among all people of discernment; and nothing re- 
mained but to set it up as a principal subject of. mirth 
and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for its having 
so long interrupted the pleasures of the world.’ It is 
now nearly two centuries since these words were written, 
and Christianity is still flourishing! And _ there- 
fore, as all previous attacks have proved futile, there 
is no reason to believe that the present one will be 
more successful. | 

Secondly, these continued assaults on Christianity 
afford in one respect additional evidence in its favour ; 
since they show, as nothing but repeated attacks could 
show, its indestructibiity. Had Christianity never been 
assailed, its strength would never have been apparent ; 
‘but now we know that, try as men will for centuries, 
they cannot get rid of this religion. 


a 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. , 5 


Lastly, it must be remembered that Rationalism is 


all destructive and not constructive. It can show 


many reasons for not believing in Christianity, but it 
can give the world nothing which can in any way 
take its place. It has no satisfactory solution for 
the great problems of life. Why does man exist at 
all? Why has he got free will ? What is the meaning 
of sin? Is there any forgiveness for sin? What is 
the meaning of death? Is there any life beyond 
death? Is there a judgment? Can we dare to face 
it? Shall we recognise those whom we have loved 
on earth? In short, what is man’s destiny here and 
hereafter? These are the questions which always 
have interested, and always will interest, mankind. 
Rationalists may say that the Christian answer to 
them is incorrect ; but they can offer no other which 
is worth a moment’s consideration. 

(C.) CONCLUSION. 

Before concluding this chapter one other point of 
some importance has to be noticed. It is that the 
early history of Christianity, with its continual triumph 
amidst continual persecution, seems to have been fore- 
known to its Founder, as well as His own marvellous 
influence in the world. 

These prophecies of Christ concerning His own 
religion are certainly very striking. We find, on the 
one hand, a most absolute conviction as to the triumph 
of His Church, and that its enemies would never prevail 
against it. And on the other, an equally certain con- 
viction as to the constant sufferings of its members, 
who were to expect life-long persecution and the 


a 


512 -THE-TRU-FH OF -CHRISTIANTLY, CHAP. XXI. 


universal hatred of mankind.!' And yet these strange 
prophecies of continual success amidst continual 
suffering were for three centuries as strangely fulfilled. 

Moreover, Christ’s assertions regarding His own 
influence in the world are equally remarkable. We 
will give but two examples.2. He said, And I, af I 
be lifted up trom the earth, will draw all men unto Myself. 
He was lifted up on the cross, and, however strange 
we may think it, millions of men have in consequence 
been drawn to Him with passionate devotion. Again, 
He said, I am the light of the world. And now, after 
eighteen centuries, both friends and foes admit that 
His is the teaching which has illuminated and regene- 
rated mankind. Had He been a mere Jewish peasant, 
the utterance of such prophecies as these seems almost 
as incredible as their fulfilment. But what shall we 
say when they were both uttered and fulfilled ? Have 
we not here an argument in favour of Christianity, 
_ the strength of which it is hard to estimate ? Nor can 
we get out of the difficulty by denying the authenticity 
of the passages ; for they would be quite as remarkable 
if invented by an evangelist as if uttered by Christ 
Himself. . 

We may now sum up this chapter on the Hzstory of 
Christianity. We have considered its early triumphs, 
and its subsequent history ; and each of these is, strictly 
speaking, unique, and each is inexplicable on purely 
natural grounds. But undoubtedly the more impor- 
tant is the marvellous success of Christianity at first, 


in spite of the great difficulties it had to encounter ; 


Rae Matt. 10.19, 22-2 161m 2 John 8.12"; 12.32% 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 513 


and, as we have seen, all natural explanations of this 
fail hopelessly. 

The historical argument, then, leads us back to. 
miracles ; for every other explanation of the first 
triumph of Christianity is found to be inadequate. 
While, on the other hand, the establishment of the 
Christian religion is precisely such an event as we 
should expect if the miracles were true. And it need 
hardly be added that true miracles, not false ones, are 
required to bear such a superstructure. The most 
holy and the most powerful religion the world has ever 
seen cannot have been founded on falsehood or fable. 
In other words, if we deny that the Christian miracles 
occurred, and take from Christ all that is superhuman, 
we cannot imagine Him as the Founder of Christianity. 
There would be an obvious disproportion between 
cause and effect. While, as a matter of fact, it was 
mot a natural Christ, but a supernatural Christ— 
the Christ of the Gospels—who won the heart of man- 
kind, and conquered the world. We seem thus forced 
to the conclusion that the only thing which can 
account for the history of Christianity is its truth. 
Anyhow, it is plain that its history affords a strong 
additional argument in its favour. 


33 


CHAPTER XXII. 


THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS 
THIS CONCLUSION. — 


Miscellaneous arguments for and against Christianity. 
(A.) CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE. 


The existence of slight errors in the Bible cannot be dis- 
puted, but they are quite unimportant, since the writers 
make no claim to Verbal Inspiration. 

(B.) CHRISTIANITY AND PRAYER. 


Its universality. There are, however, three objections. 
It is said to be— 
(1.) Scientifically incredible, as inconsistent with the 
uniformity of nature. 


(2.) Morally wrong, as impugning the power, wisdom, and 
goodness of God. 


(3.) Practically useless, as shown by statistics ; but none 
of these can be maintained. 


(C.) CHRISTIANITY AND HuMAN NATURE. 


It is adapted to human nature; for it meets to a great 
extent the inherent cravings of mankind, especially in 
regard to sorrow and sin, death and eternity. The 
objection as to selfishness... 


(D.) CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS, 


Their comparative study ; the Krishna myth; the Horus 
myth ; the uniqueness of Christianity. The objection 
that religion depends on race and climate. 


WE propose in this chapter to consider some of the 
remaining arguments for and against Christianity. 
514 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 515 


_. Fortunately, there are only four of anything like 
sufficient importance to appreciably affect the general 
conclusion. These arise from the relation of Christi- 
anity to the Bible, to prayer, to human nature, and to 
other religions ; and we will examine each in turn. 

(A.) CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE. 

Now it is only natural that a collection of books 
like the Bible, treating of sucha variety of subjects, and 
scattered through so many centuries, should be liable 
to much criticism on the one hand, and have much to 
be said in its favour on the other. A good deal of the 
evidence in its favour we have already considered, and 
also several arguments against it. But there is still 
one important and very common objection to be dis- 
cussed. It is that several slight mistakes and dis- 
crepancies exist in the Bible (which we have already 
admitted in Chapters X. and XV.); and yet ities 
essential for the Christian religion that the whole Book 
should be strictly true, since its authors were verbally 
mspired. But this latter point is disputed. 

To prevent confusion, we must carefully distinguish 
between Revelation and I nspiration. By the former is 
meant, as said in Chapter VI., any superhuman know- 
ledge directly imparted by God to man: and by the 
latter, any superhuman guidance vouchsafed to man 
in recording this or anything else. And if such 
_ guidance extends to the very words used, thus securing 
the writer against any mistake, however trivial, it is 
called verbal inspiration. Is, then, such inspiration in 
any way essential to Christianity ? Certainly not; 
for the Three Creeds do not say a word about inspira- 


53-2 


516 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XXII. 


tion from beginning to end, and even the writers of the 
Bible themselves, though of course they claim divine 
authority for their revelations and for their religious — 
teaching, do not claim to be verbally inspired. 

Some texts, it is true, seem to imply this at first sight, 
but none of them are really conclusive. Perhaps the 
strongest is where St. Paul says that he speaks ‘ not 
in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the 
Spirit teacheth.’1 And even here the inference is doubt- 
ful ; for in the previous chapter we find the word of the 
cross, meaning the doctrine or teaching of the cross, 
not the actual noun; while just before St. Paul admits 
that he is making a mistake, as he afterwards corrects 
it: and in another chapter he distinctly says that he 
is speaking ‘ not after the Lord, but as in foolishness.’ 
And though this latter passage implies inspiration of 
some kind elsewhere, it need not be verbal inspiration, 
nor need it extend to secular subjects. 

We conclude, then, that slight historical or other 
errors in the Bible are no valid argument against 
Christianity. The Book, like many others, may be 
substantially true, without being infallible. It is not, 
of course, meant that the Bible is not inspired at all. 
The Church has always believed it to be so, and there 
are strong reasons for this belief. But the question is 
one for Christians only, it does not concern unbelievers 
in Christianity, and is not essential to the religion or 
to its proofs. If the Bible is as trustworthy a record 


1 1 Cor. 2. 13; 1. 18, 14-16; 2 Cor. 11. 17 ; see also Matt. 10. 19} 
John 14. 26; Gal. 3. 16 Heb. 1. 6212.3) He Fit = Tim. 3. 16% 2 Pet, 
Meet3 


- OTHER EVIDENCE. 517 


of the facts it relates as any ordinary History of 
England, that is sufficient, indeed far more than 
sufficient, to prove Christianity without any inspira- 
tion at all. 

(B.) CHRISTIANITY AND PRAYER. 

We next come to the subject of Prayer. Now the 
Christian, in common with most other religions, asserts 
the value of prayer not only for obtaining what are 
called spiritual blessings, but also as a means of influ- 
encing natural events. And yet prayer with such an 
object is said by many to be scientifically incredible, 
morally wrong, and practically useless. So we will 
first glance at the universality of the custom, and then 
consider these objections in turn. 

Now, prayer of some kind is, and always has been, 
the universal rule in almost every religion. It is 
practically co-extensive with the human race. No one 
can point to its inventor, no one can point to a time 
when men did not pray. Missionaries have not to 
teach savages to pray, but merely to Whom to pray. In 
short, prayer of some kind seems universal, just as man’s 
moral sense of right and wrong is universal, though 
of course each is capable of being trained and perfected. 
And its intrinsic vitality is such that it has everywhere 
stood its ground for thousands of years. Nor is it in 
any way like an animal’s cry of pain when hurt, which, 
though universal, means nothing; for this of course 
‘resembles a man’s cry of pain, and has no connection 
with prayer whatever. 

If, then, prayer is a delusion, it is a very remarkable 
one, especially as in most ancient religions prayer was 


518 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXII. 


made to false gods who could not answer it ; and yet_ 
in spite of every failure, the belief in prayer has always 
remained. Men have always preferred to think that 
the failure was due to their own unworthiness, rather 
than give up the belief in a God Who answers prayer. 
And this universality of the custom is alone a strong 
argument in its favour’; for it seems most unlikely 
that God should have implanted in mankind a universal 
habit of asking if He never intended to answer. We 
pass on now to the objections. 

(1.) Scientific objection. e 

In the first place, it is said that answers to prayer are 
scientifically incredible, since they would involve God's 
interfering with the course of nature, or, in popular 
language, working miracles. The most probable ex- 
planation is, that they are only a particular class of 
superhuman coincidences (see Chapter VII.). According 
to this theory, God, knowing beforehand that the prayer 
would be offered, arranged beforehand to answer it. 
Thus the prayer was not a direct cause of the event 
which fulfilled it, but it might still have been an in- 
direct cause. For had the man not prayed, God, 
foreknowing this, might have arranged for the corre- 
sponding event not to have happened. Of course, at 
the time when the prayer was offered, the event might 
have been, and probably was, a natural consequence of 
previous events, and so could not have been avoided 
except by some special action on God’s part. Yet, as 
just shown, the prayer might still have been indirectly 
the cause of its own fulfilment. 

And the same argument applies even to the most 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 519 


extreme case, when the prayer is made after the event. 
Suppose, for instance, a man heard of the loss of a ship 
in which his son was travelling, and prayed for his 
safety. That safety, as far as the shipwreck was con- 
cerned, must have been decided before the father 
prayed. But yet, as everything was foreknown to God, 
his subsequent prayer might not have been useless ; 
since, if God had not known that the father would have 
prayed, He might not have brought about the son’s 
safety. 

Of course, it may be said that this is making the 
cause come after the effect, and is therefore absurd. 
No doubt it would be so if merely physical forces were 
involved ; but when we are dealing with personal 
beings, able to foresee and to act accordingly, there is 
nothing impossible in a cause happening after what was 
in a certain sense its effect. For instance, my going 
for a holiday next week may be the cause of my 
working hard this week ; though, strictly speaking, it 
is my foreknowledge of the intended holiday, and some 
action I took in consequence, that produced the effect. 
So in the case before us. Strictly speaking, it is God’s 
foreknowledge that the prayer would be offered, and 
some action He took in consequence, which produced 
the effect ; but for all practical purposes this is the 
same as if the prayer produced it. And therefore this 
theory does not detract from the value and importance 
of prayer any more than God’s foreknowledge in other 
respects makes human conduct of no importance. In 
every case God foreknows the result, not in spite of, but 
because He also foreknows, the man’s conduct on which 


520 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXII. 


it depends. And of course if we admit what is called 
God’s Immanence in nature, and that everything that 
occurs is due to the present and immediate action of 
His Will (Chapter VII.), it greatly lessens any remaining 
difficulty there may be in regard to prayer. 

From this it is plain that answers to prayer may, 
without losing their significance, be regarded as super- 
human coincidences ; and, if so, they do not involve 
any interference with the ordinary course of nature, 
and all scientific difficulties are at an end. 

(2.) Moral objection. | 

Next as to the moral difficulties. Prayer, it is said, 
is morally wrong, since it impugns each of the three 
great attributes of God. It impugns His Power, by 
implying that He is partially under the control of 
men; His Wisdom, by implying that He has to be 
informed of what we want; and His Goodness, by 
implying that He cannot be trusted to act for the best 
without our interference. ; 

And first, as to God’s Power. No one who prays 
supposes that God is under the control of his prayers, 
but merely that ‘He may freely choose to be influenced 
by them. Insignificant as man is in comparison 
with his Maker, we have already shown that God 
takes an interest in his welfare. And admitting this, 
there is nothing improbable in His being influenced 
by a man’s prayer. Nor is this in any way trying to 
persuade Him to change His Will, since everything 
was foreknown to God; and therefore the prayer, 
with all it involved, may have been part of His Will 
from all eternity. 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 521 


Secondly, as to God’s Wisdom. No one who prays 
supposes that prayer is for the information of God, 
or for arousing His sympathy, but merely that it is 
~the way which He has Himself chosen for us to show 
our trust in Him. Nor is there anything unlikely 
in this; for God is a Personal Being possessing Free 
Will, and therefore an appeal to this Free Will cannot 
be thought unfitting. It shows our belief in His 
Personality, and is a strong help to us in trying to 
realise it. 

Thirdly, as to God’s Goodness. As a matter of fact, 
God does not wait for us to pray to send most of His 
blessings. The vast majority of them come without 
our co-operation, but a few of them are said to be 
conditional on our praying. And this is quite con- 
sistent with perfect goodness. Human analogy seems 
decisive on the point. A father may know what his 
child wants, may be quite willing to supply that want, 
and may yet choose to wait till the child asks him. 
And why? Simply because supplying his wants is 
not the whole object the father has in view. He also 
wishes to train the child’s character ; to teach him to 
rely upon and trust his father, and to develop his con- 
- fidence and gratitude. And all this would be obviously 
unattainable if the father supplied his wants as a 
machine would do; in which case the child might 
perhaps forget that his father was not a machine. 

Now, for all we know, precisely the same may be 
the case with regard to prayer. God may wish not 
only to supply man’s wants, but also to train and 
develop his character. Indeed, as shown in Chapter V., © 


522 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXII. 


the existence of evil seems to force us to this very 
conclusion. And if so,it is out of the question to say 
that His not bestowing some blessings till they are 
asked for is incompatible with perfect goodness. It 
may be, and probably is, a very sign of that goodness. 
For, as already said, God’s goodness does not consist 
of simple beneficence, but also of righteousness. And, 
as a general rule, it certainly seems right that those 


who believe in God and take the trouble to ask for | 


His blessings should be the ones to receive them. The 
objection, then, that prayer is morally wrong cannot 
be maintained from any point of view. 


It is, however, only fair to add that a certain class 


of prayers would be wrong. We have no right to pray 
for miracles, e.g., for water to run uphill, or for a dead 
man to come to life again ; though we have a right to 
pray for any ordinary event, such as rain or recovery 
from sickness. The reason for this distinction is 
obvious. A miracle is, in popular language, something 
contrary to the order of nature; and as the order of 
nature is merely the Will of Him who ordered nature, 
it would be contrary to God’s Will. And we cannot 
ask God to act contrary to what we believe to be His 
Will. 

Of course it may be said that to pray for rain when 
otherwise it would not have rained really involves a 
miracle, for it is asking God to interfere with the 
ordinary course of nature. But here everything de- 
pends on the saving clause when otherwise it would not 
have vained. If we knew this for certain, it would be 
wrong to pray for rain: not knowing it for certain, 


‘OTHER EVIDENCE. 523 


it is not wrong. And as we do know for certain that 
water will not run uphill without a miracle, it is always 
wrong to pray for that. In the same way we may 
pray for fruitful crops, because it is plainly God’s 
Will that mankind should be nourished ; but we may 
not pray to be able to live without food, since this is 
plainly not God’s Will. Of course, in the Bible, miracles 
were sometimes prayed for, but only by persons who 
acted under Divine guidance; and this affords no 
argument for our doing so. 

(3.) Practical Objection. 

Lastly, it is said, even admitting that prayers might 
be answered, yet we have abundant evidence that 
they never are; so that prayer at the present day 
is useless. But there are some obvious difficulties 
here ; for no one asserts that all prayers are answered. 
Various conditions have to be fulfilled, many of which 
apply equally to prayers to an earthly ruler. For 
instance, a person must not only believe in God, but 
also in His power and willingness to answer prayers ; 
and the answer must be of such a kind that he may 
legitimately pray for it. Moreover, he must be trying 
to lead such a life as God wishes him to lead, and also 
be honestly exerting himself to gain the required end ; 
for prayer cannot be looked upon as a substitute for 
work. 

And this prevents our deciding the question by 
experiment, aS iS sometimes urged. Why not, it is 
said, settle the question once for all by a test case ? 
But this is impossible, since in the vast majority of 
cases we cannot say whether the above conditions are 


524 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XXII. 


fulfilled or not; and even if we could, it would still 
be impracticable. For prayer is the earnest entreaty 
that God would grant something we earnestly desire ; 
and if used as an experiment, it ceases to be genuine 
prayer altogether. And even an earthly ruler would 
have too much self-respect to answer prayers made in 
such a spirit. 

But it is further urged that though we cannot decide 
by experiment, we can by observation. But the facts 
adduced can be explained on either theory. Suppose, 
for instance, an epidemic breaks out, and prayer is at 
- once made that it may cease ; but instead of ceasing, 
it continues for a week, and kills a hundred persons. 
How do we know that but for the prayers it might 
not have continued for a month, and killed a thou- 
sand persons ? And the same argument applies in other 
cases. 

Against these various objections must be weighed 
the fact that an immense number of men of many ages 
and countries, and of undoubted intelligence and 
integrity, have asserted that their prayers have been 
answered ; and the cumulative value of this evidence 
is very great. While of course, to those who possess 
it, the conviction that certain events happened, not 
accidentally, as we should say, but in answer to some 
prayer, is absolutely convincing. It resembles in this 
respect the conviction that a man’s acts are determined 
by his free will, and not of necessity. . 

Having now decided that thereis nothing tncredible - 
in prayers being answered, that they are not wrong, 
while many of those who ought to know best assert 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 525 


that they are not useless, it is plain that no argument 
against the Christian religion can be sustained. on this 
subject. And that is the question we are considering. 
We are not appealing to answers to prayer as having 
any evidential value, which in the vast majority of 
cases they have not, but merely showing that, accord- 
ing to both science and experience, the subject is an 
- open one. 

(C.) CHRISTIANITY AND HUMAN NATURE. 

The next subject we have to consider is a very im- 
portant one, the adaptation of Christianity to human 
nature. To begin with, it is undeniable that Christi- 
anity appeals very strongly to some at least among 
every class of men. The poor value it as much as the 
rich, and the ignorant as much as the learned ; children 
can. partly understand it, and philosophers can do no 
more. And this is not only the case at the present 
time, but it has been so among all the changing con- 
ditions of society for eighteen centuries. 

Now, when we inquire into the reason of this power- 
ful hold which Christianity has on so many men, we 
find it is because it meets certain inherent cravings in 
human nature. Some of these, such as man’s belief 
in prayer, and his sense of responsibility, are of course 
satisfied by any form of Theism. So also is his idea 
of justice, which requires virtue and vice to be suitably 
rewarded hereafter, since they are not here. But man’s 
nature has many other cravings besides these; and 
yet Christianity seems to satisfy it everywhere. 

In the first place, it assures us of what we all wish 
to know, that God takes an interest in us men. This 


526 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cHap. xxm. 


is of course a truth of Natural Religion, but it is a 
truth which the progress of science, especially astro- 
nomy, makes it increasingly difficult to believe. There 
are, as we have seen, several considerations which 
lessen the difficulty (Chap. V.), but Christianity, if 
once accepted, removes it altogether. For if the Ruler 
of the Universe chose to become incarnate on this 
planet, then all thought of our insignificance is at an 
end. And when we contemplate the distant stars, we 
are overwhelmed with a sense not of the littleness of 
man, but of the greatness of the love of God, Who for 
our sakes was pleased to become Man Himself. 

And this also justifies us in regarding God as our 
Father in heaven, Who cares for us, and watches over 
us as an earthly father would do. Such a view of the 
Deity may be called anthropomorphic, but it is the 
only one that satisfies human nature. And Chris- 
tianity gives us the longed-for assurance that however 


inadequate it may be, it cannot be wrong, since it is | 


the way in which God Himself wishes us to regard 
Him. | 

We will now consider four points in detail and select 
Sorrow and Sin, Death and Eternity. The three first, 
and possibly the fourth, all have to be faced; they 
are the common heritage of all mankind. And while 
Rationalism does not help us to face any of them, 


and mere Theism leaves much in uncertainty, Chris- — 


tianity meets the needs of mankind throughout, or at 
all events far better than any other religion. 

And first, as to Sorrow. It is indisputable that in 
this life man has to bear a great deal of sorrow and 


0 oe Oe 


- 


OTHER EVIDENCE. athe err, 
suffering ; and it is also indisputable that when in 
sorrow he instinctively longs for someone who can both 
sympathise with him and help him. An impersonal 
God can of course, do neither ; indeed we might as 
well go for comfort to the force of gravity. And 
though a personal God can help us, we do not feel 
sure that He can sympathise with us. On the other 
hand, fellow-men can sympathise, but they cannot 
always help. In Christ alone we have a Being Who 
seems to entirely satisfy human nature ; for being Man, 
He can sympathise with all human sorrow, and being 
God, He can alleviate it. So here Christianity sup- 
plies a universal want. Of course, the doctrine of the 
Incarnation also: satisfies mankind in other respects, 
especially in presenting him with a worthy Object for 
his affections, and with a perfect Example ; but these 
points have been already touched upon in Chapter XIII. 

And next, as to Sin. Here again the facts are prac- 
tically undisputed. Man’s sense of sin is universal, so 
also is his belief in the justice of God; and therefore 
in all ages man has longed for some means of pro- 
pitiating the Deity. The widespread custom of sacri- 
fice is a conclusive proof of this. It shows both man’s 
inherent sense of guilt and also his inherent sense of 
the need of expiation. And yet, wherever Christianity 
has been accepted, such sacrifices have been abandoned. 
It is scarcely necessary to point out the reason for 
this. The Christian doctrine of the Atonement entirely 

satisfies these cravings of mankind. It admits the fact 
of sin ; 1t provides a sufficient Sacrifice for sin, which 
man could never provide of himself, and it thus assures 


528 * ‘THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. xxl. 


him of complete forgiveness. And yet, as shown in 
Chapter XIII., it does all this without in any way 
minimising the guilt of sin, or allowing man to sin on 
with impunity, but rather by magnifying it to an 
extent which no other religion has done, since it shows 
that it required an Infinite Sacrifice, that of God Him- 
self, to ensure its forgiveness. Moreover, Christianity 
shows that sin is not a necessity in human nature ; for 
it alone of all religions can point to One Who, though 
tempted as we are, was yet without sin. And Chris- 
 tians assert, and they surely ought to know best, that 
this example of Christ is a strong help in enabling 
them to resist sin. : 
Next, as to Death. Here. again the facts are undis- 
puted. Few persons like to contemplate their own 
death, while some even shrink from it in horror, and 
yet it is the one event to which we may look forward 
with certainty. But is there a life after death ? Most 
men long for it, and most religions have tried to 
satisfy this longing in one way or another, but only 
with partial success. The higher nature of man revolts 
against any mere material or sensual heaven such as 
Mahomet imagined, a sort of continuation of the so- 
called pleasures of this life without its pains. On the — 
other hand, a purely spiritual heaven does not satisfy 
mankind either ; for a man longs to know that he will 
be able to recognise again those whom he has loved on 
earth. This is indeed one of our deepest, strongest, 
and most universal longings (who is there that has not 
felt it ?), and yet there must always be some doubt as 
to recognising a disembodied spirit. And here again 


~ 


OTHER EVIDENCE, 529 


the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body 


alone satisfies the cravings of mankind ; for all doubt 
is now at an end. The risen body will define and 
localise man’s spirit then, just as the natural body does 
now ; and though there will be a great change, it will 
not prevent recognition. Even the Apostles, though 
unprepared for it, and though themselves unaware of 
what a risen body was like, were soon abie to recognise 
Christ after His Resurrection. 

There is, of course, the well-known difficulty as to 
the period of life of the risen body. A man, it is said, 
would only be recognised by his grandfather, if he 
remained a child ; and by his grandson, if he were an 
oldman. But the difficulty is not so great as it seems : 


for in this life a man who has not seen his son, since he 


was a child, may not be able to recognise him in later 
years, in the sense of knowing him at sight. But he 


_ may be immensely pleased to meet him again, and live 


near him, especially if in the meanwhile the son had 
done well, and been a credit to his father. Moreover, 
the risen body will show us, for the first time, what the 
man really is, when all the accidental surroundings 
with which he is now associated, such as wealth or 


poverty, have been removed,eand his character is at 


length perfected. And perhaps we shall then see that 
the various states in which he has lived here, as child, 

boy, or man, were cnly imperfect approximations to 
this, and that all that is good in any of them—the 
affection of childhood, the activity of boyhood, and 
the mature judgment of manhood—will be combined 
in the risen body. 

34 


530 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXII. _ 


And though it is somewhat tantalising not to know 
more about the future life, very possibly the 
reason why we are not told more is that we should be 
unable to understand it if we were. Even in this 
world it is doubtful if a savage or a young child could 
understand the intellectual life of a civilised man, 
however carefully it might be explained to him ; and 
practically certain that an ape could not. And for all 
we know our own future life may be as much beyond 
our present understanding. It is the Great Surprise in 
store for us all. But however much we may be changed, — 
our personal identity will still remain, I shadl be I, and 
you will be you, with much the same characters as we 
have now. This is the important point, and of this we 
may be quite certain. 

And lastly, as to Eternity. Christianity, it is true, 
can say little here, but that little is full of hope. It 
opens up boundless possibilities, far more than any other 
form of Theism. For by the Incarnation human nature 
has been united to the Divine, and thus raised to a 
position second only to that of God Himself. No 
destiny, then, that can be imagined is too great for 
man. Created or evolved (it matters not which) in the 
image of the Triune Gods with a supernatural freedom 
of choice, his nature united to God’s by the Incarnation, 
his sins forgiven through the Atonement, his body 
purified and spiritualised at its Resurrection—surely 
the end of all this cannot be any mere monotonous 
existence, but rather one of ceaseless joy and activity. 
‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard ’ what those joys are,. 
but doubtless they will be as far above anything we 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 531 


can imagine as the life of a butterfly is above the 
imagination of a chrysalis. 

Now the conclusion to be drawn from all this is quite 
plain. Christianity is so adapted to man’s nature that 
it probably came from the Author of man’s nature ; 
just as if a complicated key fits a complicated lock, it 
was probably made by the locksmith. Or, to put the 
same conclusion in other words, Christ satisfies the 
whole nature of man because He is its Creator. And 
considering that Christianity claims to be meant for all 
mankind, and that the vast majority of men have 
neither time nor ability to investigate its proofs, the 
fact of its thus appealing direct to human nature is 
certainly a strong argument in its favour ; though, like 
all arguments which depend on a man’s own feelings, 
it is not well suited for controversy. Suffice it to say, 
that many men, who are quite able to appreciate the 
force of other arguments in favour of Christianity, such 
as we have examined in this Essay, yet assert that to 
them this is an even stronger proof. 

But we must now consider an objection. It is, that 
Christianity is really a selfish religion, looking only for 
future rewards, and teaching men to follow virtue, not 
for virtue’s sake, but solely with a view to their own 
advantage here or hereafter. But this is an entire 
mistake, though a very common one. The Christian’s 
motive, in trying to lead such a life as God wishes 
him to lead, is simply Jove. He has, as already said, 
an overwhelming sense of God’s love to him. And 
though, doubtless, leading a good life will bring 
with it some future reward, yet this is not the true 


(34-2 


532 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. xxu. 


motive for leading it. Compare the case of a young 
child trying to please his parents simply because he 
‘loves them. It would be unjust to call this selfish- 
ness, though it may be quite true that the parents 
would do much for the child later on in life, which they 
would not have done had the child never shown them 
any affection. 

Or again to take another example, if a young man 
puts aside a certain amount of his earnings for his old 
age, when ‘he will be unable to work, though he may 
do this expressly for his own benefit, it is scarcely 
selfishness. It would be better described as thriit, 
and is worthy of all praise. So again, for a man to 
strive to subdue his evil passions is certainly not 
selfishness, though it is equally certain that it will be 
‘to his own advantage. Selfishness is having regard to 
one’s own advantage at the expense of that of other 
people. But any idea of this kind is quite inapplicable 
to a Christian’s striving after his own salvation. The 
Great Ambition, as it is called, is one which all may 
entertain, all may work for, and all may realise. 

Still, it may'be urged, is not the hope of future 
reward meant to influence men at all? No doubt it 
is to some extent. But what then? Hope, however 
we may explain it, is a powerful fact in human nature, 
and therefore Christianity, by partly appealing to this 
motive, does but show how fully adapted it is to human 
nature. It provides the highest motive of Jove for 
those able to appreciate it ; the lower motive of hope 
of future reward for the many who would not be 
reached by the former ; and, it may be added, the still 


- * 
A 


— 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 533 


lower motive of fear of future punishment for those 
who could not be otherwise influenced. This objec- 
tion, then, as to selfishness is quite untenable. 

(D). CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS. 

We have lastly to consider the relation in which 
Christianity stands to other religions ; and this is the 
more important because an argument said to be 
adverse to Christianity is derived from their comparative 
study. In far more ancient religions, it is alleged, we 
find similar doctrines to those of the Trinity, the 
Incarnation, and the Atonement. These are, in fact, 
mere revivals of doctrines once common in various 
countries : and this is fatal to the claim of Christianity 
to be the one and only true Religion. 

But as to the doctrine of the Tvinity, it is really 
-unique. Many other religions had three gods, a kind 
of triad; but this was merely a form of Polytheism. 
And though these gods were often addressed indis- 
criminately by the same titles, there does not appear 
to have been anything resembling the Christian idea 
of the Triune God. 

Next, as to the Incarnation. This is said to resemble 
similar doctrines of other ancient religions, more 
especially the incarnation of Krishna, since in this case, 
besides the main fact of Krishna being believed to be 
an incarnation of the supreme god Vishnu, he is 
recorded to have worked various miracles similar to 
- those of Christ, and to have claimed an equally abso- 
lute devotion from his followers. Most critics, how- 
ever, now place these legends some centuries later than 
the Christian era ; and considering the early spread of 


534 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cHAP. Xxu. 


Christianity in India, and the similarity in name be- 
tween Krishna and Christ, they may be only distorted 
versions of the Gospel story. 

But even were they earlier than Christianity, it 
would still seem impossible for them to have influenced 
it. Not only is there the geographical difficulty— 
India being many hundreds of miles from Palestine, 
and with little communication between them—but 
there is a still greater moral difficulty. For the 
miracles and occasional lofty teaching of Krishna are 
associated all along with a most immoral character. 
In the Gospels, on the other hand, they occur among 
suitable antecedents and suitable consequents ; they 
form perfect parts of a perfect whole. A single example 
will illustrate this difference. In the Purana, Krishna 
is related to have healed a deformed woman, almost 
identical with the story in Luke 13. But it is added 
he made her beautiful as well as whole, and subse- 
quently spent the night with her in immorality. Few 
will contend that this was the origin of the Gospel 
story ; and it is but one instance out of many.* 

Any resemblance, then, there may be between the 
Incarnation of Krishna and that of Christ cannot be . 
due to Christianity having borrowed from the earlier 
religion. A far better explanation is to be found in 
the fact that man has almost always believed that God 
takes an interest in his welfare. And this inherent 
belief has naturally led him to imagine an incarnation, 
since this was the most fitting method by which God 
could make Himself known to man. And then this 


1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxi., p. 169. 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 535 


supposed incarnation was of course attended by various 
miracles of healing, somewhat similar to those of Christ, 
though often mixed up with immoral ideas, from which 
the Christian doctrine is entirely free. 

Lastly, as to the doctrine of the Atonement, especially 
the mediatorial character of Christ. This also is said to 
resemble far more ancient legends. Thus in Babylonia 
there was the supreme god Ea and his son Merodach, 
who was the mediator between God and man, and to 
whom men offered their prayers, which he presented to 
his father. But perhaps the most striking resemblance 
is with the Horus myth of ancient Egypt. 

Now, although this doctrine, like most others in the 
Egyptian religion, is very confused, the leading idea 
seems to have been that Horus was the only son of 
the supreme god Osiris, and came on earth long ago, 
before the time of man. He was always looked upon 
as the champion of right against wrong, and nothing 
but lofty and noble actions are ascribed to him. With 
regard to mankind, he became their deliverer and 
justifier. The soul after death was supposed to pass 
through a sort of Purgatory, where various dangers 
were overcome by the help of Horus, and finally, when 
judged before Osiris, he interceded for the faithful 
soul and ensured its salvation. And what makes the 
resemblance to Christianity all the more striking are 
the titles ascribed to Horus. Thus he is called the 
Only Begotten Son of the Father, the Word of the Father, 
the Justifier of the Righteous, the Eternal King, etc. 
But the titles of Horus are almost infinite in number, 
and very contradictory, and therefore, while some of 


536 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHap. xxi. 


them bear such a striking resemblance to those of 


Christ, others do not ; while many of them are also™ 


applied to the other gods. 

But still this does not affect the mediatorial character 
of Horus, which undoubtedly bears a strong resem- 
blance to that of Christ. But what is the cause of 
this similarity ? Not surely that the Christian doctrine 
was founded on that of Horus. The whole origin of 
Christianity negatives such a view. As in the previous 
case, there is another and far better solution. For 
what was the origin of the Egyptian doctrine itself ? 
It was simply this. The ancient Egyptians were 
deeply impressed with a sense of the justice of God; 
the tmmortality of man; his responsibility, involving 
a future judgment ; and his sinfudness, which naturally 
led him to long for some mediator with the just Judge 
he would have to face hereafter. Given these four 
ideas — and they are all elementary principles of 
Natural Theology—and Horus was merely an imaginary 
being, whom the Egyptians invented to satisfy them. 
And therefore, if these ideas are true and if Christianity 
is the true religion which really does satisfy them, 
that Horus should to some extent resemble Christ 
was inevitable. Thus, the Horus myth only proves 
how deeply rooted in the human mind is:the idea of a 
mediator between God and man. 

Now what general conclusion can be drawn from all 
this? It is scarcely conceivable that the early Chris- 
tians founded their Religion upon a careful piecing 
together of fables from India, Egypt, and elsewhere. 


1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xii., P52: 


} - 
a eS 


OTHER EVIDENCE. Eyaen 


And it must be remembered, the doctrines of the 
Incarnation and the Atonement were not slowly 
evolved, but were essential features in Christianity 
from the very first. They are both strongly empha- 
sised in the admittedly genuine Epistles of St. Paul. 
These earlier fables, then, can only be looked upon as 
accidental or designed foreshadowings of Christianity. 
In the former case, they prove nothing either way ; 
in the latter, they afford additional evidence in its 
favour. 

Moreover, while admitting these resemblances, we 
must not forget the uniqueness of Christianity. For it 
alone of all religions seems to offer anything like an 
adequate solution of the great problems of life, which 
we glanced at near the end of the last chapter.. And 
these are questions which have always interested 
mankind, and all religions have tried to solve them, 
and yet the only solution worth considering is that of 
Christianity. 

We have still one other objection to consider under 
this head. It is said that religion, after all, is merely a 
matter of vace and climate, like the colour of one’s skin ; 
and that the most ardent advocate of Christianity, 
had he been born in Arabia or Tibet, would be just as 
convinced of Mahometanism or Buddhism. And there- 
fore, it.is urged, all religions are equally true or false. 
But the fallacy of this objection is obvious, for it applies 
equally well to other subjects. Take astronomy, for 
instance. A man living in Europe is convinced that 
the earth goes round the sun; but had he lived in 
Tibet, he might be equally convinced that the sun goes 


538 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cHAP. XXII. 


round the earth ; and had he lived elsewhere, that the 
sun was a living .being which had to be worshipped. 
But this does not show that all these theories are 
equally true or false. The European astronomer is 
— convinced, and rightly so, that his theory is the only 
true one, and confidently looks forward to the time 
when it will be universally accepted. In the same way, 
the Christian is convinced that his Religion is the only 
true one, and, as shown in the last chapter, confidently 
looks forward to the time when it will be the only one 
recognised. ; 

Moreover, this objection does not account for the 
founding of a religion at all. When Christianity was 
first preached, it was not a matter of race and climate 
for men to accept it ; and even now it is only partly 
true. No doubt a man who has been brought up a 
Christian does believe it at first because he is told to ; 
but it is the same with regard to other kinds of know- 
ledge. In science, for instance, a man has often to 
take its principles on trust to start with, and then, by 
gradually applying them to various facts, he arrives 
at an independent conviction of their truth. And 
so in regard to Christianity. Its doctrines are first 
received on authority ; then comes the period of ex- 
perience, when they are found to explain the various 
facts of life ; and lastly, the rational conviction.. Take, 
for example, the subject of prayer. Probably most 
men who believe in the efficacy of prayer did so at first 
because they were taught it. Then came the period 
of experience, when they found that, as a matter of 
fact, their prayers were answered ; and lastly, the 


2... Y 
~~. Se a ee “ 


OTHER EVIDENCE. 539 


raticnal conviction. And it is the same with other 
subjects. This objection, then, is quite untenable. 

On the whole, then, it is evident that the comparative 
study of religions, so far from being adverse to Chris- 
tianity, is distinctly in its favour; for it shows, as 
nothing but a comparative study could show, its 
striking superiority. Human nature is always the 
same, and in so far as other religions have satisfied 
human nature, they have resembled Christianity ; 
while, on the other hand, Christianity differs from them 
in being free from their various absurdities and contra- 
dictions, as well as from their tendency to degenerate, 
and having instead a moral character of admitted 
excellence, and powerful evidence by which to establish 
its actual truth. In short, other religions are human, 
and therefore, as man is a mixture of good and evil, 
they contain some good (what we now call Natural 
Religion) and some evil. But Christianity is super- 
human, and therefore contains all the good they do, 
with much more besides, and with none of their evil. 
This completes a brief examination of the more 
important additional arguments for and against 
Christianity. 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 


Only three Doctrines can be disputed. 


(4.) THE DocTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 


In addition to belief in God the Father, the New Testa- 
ment teaches— 

(1.) The Divinity of Christ. 

(2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit ; so there are 

(3.) Three Divine Persons and yet but One God. 


(B.) THE FinaL STATE OF THE WICKED. 
The only possible alternatives are : 


(x.) Their endless misery : very strong texts in favour of 
this ; its difficulties considered. 

(2.) Their endless happiness : most improbable. 

(3.) Their annihilation: not perhaps unlikely in some 
cases. On the whole the statement of the Creed 
seems fully justified. 


(C.) THE ImpoRTANCE OF A RiGHT BELIEF. 


This is strongly insisted on in the warning Sana of the 
Athanasian Creed. 

(7.) Their meaning. 

(2.) Their truthfulness : they merely repeat similar warn- 
ings in the New Testament. 

(3.) The objection as to Dogmatism considered in detail. 


WE have now reached the last stage in our inquiry. 

We have shown in the preceding chapters that there is 

very strong evidence in favour of what may be called, 
540 


: 
a ee ee eee 


THE THREE CREEDS. 541 


and what we have called in a general sense, Christianity 
or the Christian Religion—z.e., the Religion founded by 
Christ and taught in the New Testament. We have, 
lastly, to inquire, is this Religion correctly summarised 
in the doctrines and statements of the Three Creeds ? 
We must, therefore, examine these doctrines again, 
but from a totally different standpoint from that in 
Chapter XIII. We then considered their antecedent 
credibility ; but now, admitting this, and admitting 
that the New Testament contains a revelation from 
God, we have merely to see whether the Creeds are 
fairly deducible from it. 

And it is obvious that, while every precaution should 
be taken to test the credentials of an alleged messenger 
from God, we have often no sufficient data from which 
to argue as to the contents of his message. The most 
unlikely doctrines must therefore be at once accepted, 
if we are satisfied that they were revealed by God. 
And this greatly simplifies our present inquiry, for 
most of the statements in the Creeds are merely copied 
or abridged from the New Testament, and hence they 
need not be discussed at all. There are, however, three 
doctrines in the Athanasian Creed which are sometimes 
said not to be contained in the New Testament. These 
refer to the Trinity ; the Final State of the Wicked ; 
and the importance of a Right Belief; and we will 
examine each in turn. 

(A.) THE DocTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Now, although there are no statements in the New 
Testament identical with those in the Creed, yet the 
latter are merely logical deductions from the former. 


542 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XXIII. | 


For the New Testament asserts that, besides God the 
Father, there are two other Divine Persons, Christ and 
the Holy Spirit, and yet but one God. 

(1.) The Divinity of Christ. 

This has already been discussed in Chapter XX., 
where we showed that Christ claimed to be not only 
Superhuman, but Divine ; and that this is how all His 
contemporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him. 
And the doctrine is also frequently asserted by St. Paul, 
and St. John, as well as being implied in some of the 
Jewish prophecies concerning the Messiah (Chapter 
XIX.), so that it is clear from the Bible that Christ was 
truly God. It is none the less clear that He was truly 
Man, for He suffered hunger, thirst, weariness, and even 
death ; and at times His manhood is insisted on in 
a way which might even be thought to conflict with 
His Godhead. 

For instance, He said, ‘ I go unto the Father ; for the 
Father is greater than I’; and ‘I ascend unto my 
Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’* 
But both these passages clearly refer. to His human 
nature alone, for it was in His human nature alone that 
He was ever absent from the Father. In His Divine 
Nature He was of course Omnipresent, and therefore 
already in heaven. Moreover, even here He carefully 
distinguishes His own relationship to God from that of 
His disciples. For though He teaches them to say our 
Father, yet when including Himself with them, He 
does not here or anywhere else say our Father, or our 
God ; but always emphasises His own peculiar position. 


1 John 14. 28; 20. 17. 


a _- 


ae 


THE THREE CREEDS. 543 


While we may ask in regard to the first passage, 
would anyone but God have thought it necessary’ 
to explain that God the Father was greater than 
Himself ? 

Again St. Luke says that Christ advanced in wisdom,* 
which might be thought to disprove His Divine Omni- 
science. But the context shows that this also refers to 
His human nature alone, for we read ‘ He advanced in 
wisdom and stature. Moreover, even apart from the 
context, if once we admit that Christ was both Divine 
and human, we must of course refer any particular 
statement to that nature to which it is applicable. 
And this explains several difficult passages such as 
that the Son (apparently the Son of God) does not 
know the Day of Judgment, or that the Lord of Glory 
was crucified ; or (conversely) that the Son of Man 
came down from heaven.2 Such texts, then, do but 
support the statement in the Creed, that while Christ 
was equal to the Father in regard to His Godhead, He 
was inferior to the Father in regard to His Manhood. 
He was thus not a kind of intermediate Being, who was 
partly Divine and partly human, but He was wholly 
Divine and wholly human; or, as the Creed says, 
perfect God and perfect Man. 

(2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 

This also follows at once from the New Testament. 
For the Holy Spirit is called by Divine names, such as 
God and Lord; he is given Divine attributes, such as. 
Eternity and Omniscience ; He is asserted to be the 
source of Revelation ; He is identified with Jehovah, 


1 Luke 2. 52. 2 Mark 13. 32; 1 Cor. 2.8; John 3. 13. 


544 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXIII. 


the Lord of Hosts, of the Old Testament ; and blas- 
‘phemy against Him is said to be the worst of all 
sins.) _ | 

And yet, on the other hand, it is equally clear that 
He is a distinct Person : for, to quote a decisive text,? 
Christ prays the Father to send His disciples another 
Comforter when He goes away ; thus showing that the 
Holy Spirit is a separate Person, both from the Father 
and the Son. And the same is apparent from many 
other passages, when carefully examined ; for personal 
actions, such as teaching and guiding, are continually 
ascribed to Him ; and the masculine pronoun is regu- 
larly used, ‘ He shall teach you all things,’ etc. More- 
over, we are told that the Spirit makes intercession for 
us, so He must be a different Person from the Father, 
with Whom He intercedes; and also that He dis- 
tributes certain gifts even as He will, so He must be 
distinct from these spiritual blessings, which He is able 
to distribute as He thinks fit. And though He is 
sometimes spoken of as a Gift from God, yet as Christ 
is spoken of in the same way, this cannot be held to 
disprove His Personality.4 

No doubt the actual word Person is not applied to 
the Holy Spirit, just as it is not applied to either the 
Father or the Son, but it cannot be thought inappro- 


1 Acts 5. 3, 4; 2 Cor. 3. 17; Heb. 9, 14°; 1 Cor. 2. 1@37ActsHe e6e 
28. 25; Isa. 6. 5-10; Mark 3. 29. 

2 John 14. 16. 

3 Rom. 8. 26; 1 Cor. 12. 11. The unfortunate addition of the 
Filioque Clause to the Nicene Creed is a purely theological question, 
and need not be considered here. 

* Acts 2. 38; John 3. 16. 


a ee ee a er 


THE THREE CREEDS. 545 


priate, since the relations between them closely re- 
semble those between human persons, as they love 
one another, speak to one another, and apply to one 
another the personal pronouns I, Thou, and He. 

(3-) Three Divine Persons and yet but one God. 

It is clear, then, from the New Testament, that the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Persons, 
and all Divine ; and yet its whole teaching is opposed 
to Polytheism. On the contrary, the Unity of the 
Godhead is at times asserted with the utmost clear- 
ness ; and that this is not done more frequently cannot 
be wondered at when we remember that most of the 
writers were Jews, to whom Monotheism was almost 
an axiom. Now the only means of reconciling all this 
is by the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. 

And this is plainly hinted at in the New Testament 
itself, for the Three Persons are often closely associated 
together, as for instance in the text just alluded to 
(which is only one of a series), where Christ prays 
the Father to give His disciples another Comforter. 
Quite naturally, then, just before His Ascension, He 
completed all this earlier teaching by finally, and for 
ever, coupling the Three Persons together, when He 
commanded that all Christians were to be baptized 
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost2 And this alone is sufficient to prove the 
doctrine, for it shows that there are Three distinct 
_ Persons, and that each is divine, for who but God could 
be thus associated with God? While the expression into 
the name and not names, implies a unity in this Trinity. 

* John 14. 16, 26; 15. 26; 16. 7. 2 Matt. 28. ro. 
ap, 


546 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — ciap. XXull. 


But this is not all, for Christian converts must have 
received some instruction as to Who these Persons 
were, into whose Name they were going to be baptized. 
And therefore belief in the Trinity was not merely a 
doctrine of Christianity, but ¢#e doctrine of Christianity 
from the very first ; the one (and as far as we know the 
only) doctrine, which had to be preached to all con- 
verts before even they could be baptized. 


And we happen to have indirect evidence from the _ 


Acts, that this Trinitarian form was actually used. 
A casual reader of the Book might think that belief in 
the Lord (Jesus) was the only requisite for Baptism. 
But we are told in one place that when St. Paul was at 
Ephesus, he found some disciples who said they knew 
nothing about the Holy Ghost. He at once asks in 
astonishment, ‘Into what then were ye baptized ?? 
Obviously, then, the baptism to which St. Paul was 
accustomed must have been into the name of the Holy 
Ghost, as well as into the name of the Lord Jesus. 


And as the Father’s name could scarcely have been ~ 


omitted, we have each of the Three Persons ; and the 
agreement (evidently undesigned) between this passage 
and the Gospel is a strong argument in favour of the 


accuracy of both. And yet immediately afterwards we | 


are told that they were baptized into the Name of the 
Lord Jesus. In the same way the ‘ Teaching of the 
Twelve’ once speaks of baptism as into the Name of 


the Lord ; and twice as into the Name of the Father, and 


of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost2 The former seems 
to have been only a short way of describing Christian 


‘acts, 19.5, 2 Teaching, chaps. vii. and ix. 


hy 


- 


THE THREE CREEDS. 547 


_ baptism, (in distinction to that of the Jews or of 


St. John the Baptist,) while the latter represented the 
actual words used.1 

Similarly St. Paul sometimes closes his Epistles with 
the shorter form of blessing, The grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ be with you; and once with the longer 
form, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love 
of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with 
you all.2 This latter passage, the authenticity of which 
is undisputed, is of course extremely important, in fact 
like the preceding one it is practically conclusive ; 
for again we must ask, who but God could be thus 
associated with God? If Christ was a mere human 
prophet, like Isaiah for instance ; and the Holy Spirit 
a mere impersonal influence ; what strange language 
it would be. Can we imagine anyone blessing his 
converts with, The grace of Isaiah, the love of God, 
and the fellowship of a holy influence ? God, it will 
be noticed, being placed between the other two, so there 
can be no ascending or descending scale, they must 
all be equal. (Compare the way in which St. Paul so 
often associates together the Father and Christ, some- 


_ times the one, and sometimes the other, being placed 


first).8 

And as St. Paul takes for granted that his readers 
would understand his meaning, it implies that they 
had had some previous Trinitarian teaching, which 
must clearly have been given them by St. Paul him- 


1 Comp. Acts 2. 333° 8. 16° 1:Cor- 10. 2. 
2 1 Cor. 16. 23; Rom. 16. 20.4 Gal. 6:18 *2 Cor. 13: 4. 
° E.g., 1 Thess. 3. 4; 2 Thess. 2. 16. 


35—2 


548 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cwap. xxut. 


self on his first visit. And at that early date (about 
A.D. 49) such teaching could scarcely have originated 
except from what Christ Himself had taught. This 
passage, then, implies more than it says, and needs 
explanation ; and as far as we know the former one 
alone can explain it. 

And of course the same is true, though to a lesser 
degree, of numerous other Trinitarian passages, which 
occur all through the Epistles, including the earliest 
(x Thess., about A.D. 49).” Nowhere do the writers 
seem to be elaborating a doctrine, or to be explaining 
anything new to their converts ; but rather to be 
touching incidentally on a truth, with which all Chris- 
tians were of course familiar. Indeed, the very fact 
of their never attempting to explain or defend the 
doctrine, shows conclusively that it did not originate 
with them. Persons do not preach a new doctrine 
without a word of explanation or comment, and as if 
- everyone already believed it. 

Thus, to put it shortly, according to the New Testa- 
ment, there are three distinct Persons ; each is God, 
each is Lord, eath is Eternal, each is Omniscient, each 
performs Divine acts, into the Name of each converts 
are baptized, each is referred to in Blessing ; and yet 
there is but One God. This is what the Bible says, 
and the Creed says no more, though it says it in more 
scientific language. 

And if we like to come beyond the New Testament, 
the earliest writer whose date is undisputed, Clement 


1 E.g., 1 Cor. 12. 4-6; Eph. 3. 14-17, 4. 4-6; 1 Thess. if 3-5 
2 Thess. 2. 13-14; 1 Peter. 1.2; Jude 20-21. 


’ “ , = 
ee ee 


THE THREE CREEDS. 549 


of Rome, A.D. 96, uses these striking words in the con- 
cluding portion of his Epistle (only recovered in 1875), 
As God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the 
Holy Ghost live ; and this certainly implies the Trini- 
tarian doctrine. And so do numerous passages in 
Ignatius, A.D. I10, such as that we are to be established 
in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; and 
that the Apostles were subject to Christ, and to the 
Father and to the Spirit* While some years later 
Justin shows that Baptism in the Triune Name was 
then, and had been for a long time, in common use.? 
And this is important as confirming the previous state- 
ment of the Teaching. And it is hard to see how 
Christians, early in the second century, should not 
only have used this form themselves, but have accepted 
the statement in the Gospel, that it had been instituted 
by Christ, if they had known that in the interval a 
different one had been used by the Apostles. And yet 
if it had been used, they must have known it ; for the 
manner of admitting converts was not like some obscure 
rite or doctrine, which concerned only a few, and might 
be generally unknown ; but from the nature of the case 
it must have been well known to all the early Christians, 
most of whom were converts themselves. There can 
thus be little doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity, 
though perhaps in an undeveloped form, was the belief 
of Christians from the very first. 

(B.) THe FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED. 

We pass on now to what is perhaps (however we 
regard it) the most difficult of all subjects, the final — 


1 Ignatius to Magnesians, ch. xiii. 2 Apol. 1. 61. 


550 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — CHAP. XXIII. 


state of the wicked. The Creed asserts that all men 
are to rise again with their bodies, and be judged 
according to their works ; and that then, they that have 
done good shall go into life everlasting ; and they that 
have done evil into everlasting fire. This latter expres- 
sion can scarcely be taken literally, since it is often 
associated in the Bible with another—the worm that 
dieth not—which can scarcely be literal ; and is said to 
have been prepared for evil spirits who have no material 


bodies. Moreover, the joys of heaven are also repre- 


sented by such terms as attending a wedding, feasting 
with Abraham, and wearing crowns, which can scarcely 
be literal. Probably we are at present unable to under- 
stand the realities in either case, and therefore figures 
of some kind have to be employed; and those suggestive 
of gladness and happiness are of course chosen for the 
one, and those suggestive of pain and woe for the 
other. 

But the language certainly implies some form of 


endless misery ; and as there are obvious difficulties. 


in accepting such a view, we must discuss the subject 
at some length.’ It may be pointed out at starting 


that we have only three theories to choose from ; for 


unless the wicked are to be in a continual state of 
change, which seems almost incredible (for a state of 
change cannot go on for ever unless it is recurring) 
they must finally :— 


Exist for everin misery = their endless misery ; 
Exist for ever in happiness = their endless happiness ; 
Or not exist for ever = their annihilation. 


,rs r 
ELE ee ae ne a an 


THE THREE CREEDS. oF 


(1.) Thetr endless misery. 

And first as to their endless misery. It would be 
difficult to exaggerate the strength of the texts in 
favour of this. We are told that the wicked, or at all 
events some of them, are to awake to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt; that they are to be cast into the 
eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ; that 
they are to go away into eternal punishment ; that they 
are guilty of an eternal sin ; that their worm dieth not 
and the fire is not quenched, and that they are to be 
cast into the lake of fire, there to be tormented day and 
night for ever and ever.! The fourth of these texts is 
perhaps the most important, since Christ uses the same 
word for eternal punishment as for eternal life; and 
therefore, though the Greek word does not necessarily 
mean endless, it certainly seems to do so here. While 
in Daniel the same Hebrew word is used for the ever- 
lasting life of the righteous, and the everlasting contempt 
of the wicked ; which again shows that they must be 
cf equal duration. 

Moreover the doctrine is implied in numerous other 
passages all through the New Testament. For in- 
stance, to take the first Gospel, we read of the broad 
way leading to destruction, with no hint that it 
eventually joins the narrow way leading to life; of 
those who think they will be accepted at the last, but 
will be sternly rejected ; of the disinherited children 
cast into outer darkness, when others enter into heaven ; 
of those whom Christ will deny before His Father ; 


4 Dan, 12. 2; Matt. 18. 8; 25. 41, 46; Mark 3. 29; 9. 48; Rev. 
bert} 20, 15, 


552 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. Xxtil. 


and of the wicked who at the end of the world are to 
be cast into the furnace of fire, where there shall be 
weeping and gnashing of teeth, so obviously the fire 
will not destroy them (and cannot therefore be literal), 
while there is no hint that their weeping is to be only 
temporary. 

We also read of the man whose condition was so 
hopeless, that it would have been good for him not to 
have been born; and of the sin which shall not be 
forgiven neither in this world nor in that which is to 
come, and an unforgiven sin implies the existence of 
the sinner who is unforgiven, and therefore a sin which 
is for ever unforgiven implies the existence of the 
sinner for ever, and must for ever exclude him from 
heaven.! And as just said, similar teaching is found 
all through the New Testament, so the Scriptural 
- doctrine on the subject seems about as clear as it 
can be. 

And yet everyone must admit that there are great 


difficulties in accepting it. For the endless misery of — 


the wicked seems, at all events at first sight, to be 
inconsistent with the great attributes of God, especially 
His power, His justice, and His mercy, as well as with 
the endless happiness of the righteous. So we will 
consider these points in turn. 

The first objection refers to God’s power. The 
eternal existence of sinners against God means, it is 
said, the never-ending conflict between good and evil ; 
and this is most improbable. No doubt it seems so ; 
but, after all, the real mystery is that evil should ever 


4 Matt. 7. 13, 23; 8. 12; 10.°33; 13. 42,:50 ;-26. 24 ¢neoe gee 


THE THREE CREEDS. 553 


have had a beginning, not that it should never have 
an end. And if the free will of man or other beings is 
able to account for the former, may it not account for 
the latter also? The final state of the wicked, we 
must remember, is but one of a series of difficulties 
connected with human freedom, and by no means the 
greatest. That God could create a free man at all, 
that He could foresee how he would use his freedom, 
that He should allow him to use it wrongly, thus 
involving himself and others in misery, and that this 
misery should last for ever, are all to a great extent 
beyond our comprehension. But if we admit the first 
three, and they must be admitted, the last is certainly 
not incredible. 

The second and commonest objection refers to God’s 
justice. The suffering, it is said, would be out of all 
proportion to the offence. Man’s life is brief at the — 
most, and every sin in this world cannot deserve 
countless years of misery in the next. In short, a 
man’s sin here must anyhow be finite, while endless 
misery, however slight, would be infinite. But very 
possibly, being sinners ourselves, we do not realise the 
magnitude of sin, more especially its far-reaching and 
permanent effect on the character of others, who in 
their turn may influence others also, and so on in- 
definitely. In this way the consequences of sin may 
really be endless, and therefore infinite, and if so its 
guilt may be infinite too. 

Moreover, it is a needless assumption that endless 
misery is for a man’s sins here only. Why may not 
the wicked go on sinning eternally ? They must cer- 


554 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXII. 


tainly have the power of doing so, for the option of 
acting, or at all events thinking right or wrong, seems 


essential to free will; and if we deny them their free ~ 


will, they are no longer men but mere machines. And 
it even seems probable that they would do so ; for all 
our experience of human character is that it tends to a 
final permanence, of good or bad, which nothing can 
alter. By doing good, men become good—evil gradu- 
ally loses its influence over them. And then, when 


their character is fixed, they will be incapable of being 


attracted by evil ; and they will in consequence remain 
(and this without any effort or struggle on their part) 
for ever good, and therefore for ever happy. And 
similarly with regard to the wicked. By committing 
sin men become sinful, and when their character is 
fixed they may remain for ever sinful, and therefore 
for ever miserable. In each case the man’s conduct 
will be always free, but his character, and therefore 
the use which he makes of his freedom, will have 
become fixed. 

Still, it may be said that to create men at all with 
the possibility of such a future before them, and 
depending on the short probation in this world, would 
be an act of injustice. But then the possibility of 
endless happiness is also before them, and also de- 
pending on the same short probation. And as men 
are given free will, with the option of choosing one or 
the other, there is nothing unjust in the results being 
so tremendous on either side. Anyhow, the fact of a 
long future, depending on a very short period, is in 
entire agreement with God’s methods in nature, where, 


THE THREE CREEDS. 555 


for instance, the shape of a tree for centuries is fixed 
during the short time it is growing. 

Nor does the fact of God’s foreknowledge as to how 
each man will act alter the case or cause any injustice. 
For, as said in Ghapter II., it does not interfere with 
man’s freedom. God merely foreknows the use man 
will make of his freedom. And therefore His know- 
ing beforehand that a man will commit a murder does 
not make it unjust to punish him for doing so. And 
the same rule applies universally ; so that although 
God foreknows that the wicked will be lost, they will 
not be lost because God foreknows it. They will be 


lost because of their own wilful abuse of their own 


free will ; and God foreknows both this, and its conse- 
quences. 

The third objection refers to God’s mercy. Surely. 
it is said, God would never punish men unless there 
were a chance of improving them. But in answer to 
this we must remember that God’s mercy is consistent 
with a great deal of misery here, which is often un- 
deserved ; so why may it not be consistent with misery 
hereafter, which by hypothesis will be deserved ? And 
some future punishment for wicked men, who have 
been prosperous ‘in this life, seems required by our 
sense of justice. . 

Moreover, the misery of the wicked may not be 
inflicted at all like an arbitrary punishment, but may 
be self-produced and come as a necessary result of 
their own acts, being, in fact, the consequence rather 
than the punishment of sin. And there is much to 
be said in favour of this view, since it is the way in 


556 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cHAP. XXIII. 


which God punishes men in this world. Suppose, for 
instance, a man repeatedly gives way to drink, he will 
have the natural punishment (which is really God's 
punishment, Who is the Author of Nature) of becom- 
ing an habitual drunkard, and very possibly miserable 


for the rest of his life. It is the necessary consequence — 


of his sin ; and the extent of his misery will, as a rule, 


be in exact proportion to the extent of his sm. And 


therefore, if a man is to suffer hereafter for other sins, 
we should expect this suffering to come in the same 
way, and to be the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, 
consequence of the sin itself. 

Nor is it difficult to suggest how this may be. For 
the endless misery of the wicked may be to a great 
extent remorse and regret at having made themselves 
unfit to share in the joys of heaven. And until we 
know the greatness of those joys, we cannot know the 
greatness of this suffering. But it will certainly be 
aggravated by the knowledge that it was the result of 
their own deliberate choice of sin, after they had been 
repeatedly warned of its necessary consequences. And 
assuming that ‘the joys of heaven are endless, and 


that the existence of the wicked outside heaven is 


also endless, this must plainly be an endless source of 
misery. And the fact that it is the same Christ who 
has taught us (more than anyone else) the mercy and 
love of God, who has also taught us the endless misery 
of the wicked, is an additional reason for thinking 
that the two must really be compatible. 


The fourth and last objection refers to man rather | 


than God. It is that the endless misery of the wicked 


my , 
es ae — 


THE THREE CREEDS. 557 


would destroy the happiness of the righteous ; for how 
could a man enjoy heaven if he knew that his own 
father and mother were in endless and hopeless misery 
elsewhere ? Of course, if we deny him his memory, and 
say he does not remember them, it destroys his identity, 
and he is to all intents and purposes a different man. 
I have not met with any satisfactory answer to this 
difficulty. But it may be pointed out that memory is 
never more than partial. No one remembers all the 
friends he has met; and possibly persons- in heaven 
may remember and recognise those they meet there, 


without being troubled by the thought of absent ones. 


And even if they should remember the others and know 
their fate, they will certainly know their character also, 
and that their fate was deserved. And this may alter 
their feelings in regard to them, as it often does now, 
if we find that one of our friends has behaved in a 
mean and disgraceful manner. While, lastly, the joys 
and activities of heaven may be so engrossing as not to 
leave any time for useless regrets. 

Reviewing all these objections, it must be admitted 
that the endless misery of the wicked seems improb- 


able, but it is certainly not tncredible. For to put it 


shortly, our knowledge of human nature convinces us 
that, out of a large number of wicked men, some at 
all events will continue to be wicked, 7.e., to commit 
sin as long as they live. Hence, if they live for ever, 
they will sin for ever. And if they sin for ever, it is 
not only just, but perhaps inevitable, that they should 
be miserable for ever. And if so, the endless misery 
of the wicked does not reflect on either the power, 


558 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. — cuap. Xxul. 


justice, or mercy of God, and, as said above, is cer- | 


tainly not incredible. 

(2). Their endless happiness. 

We pass on now to the next theory, that of their 
endless happiness. This is often called Universalism, 
and means that, after some suitable punishment, all 
the wicked will be finally reconciled to God, and in 
popular language, go to heaven. And there are 


several texts which are more or less in favour of — 


this view.1 The strongest is perhaps where it 1s 
said that God is the Saviour of all men, sfecially 
of them that believe ; thus implying that He is also, 
though in a lesser degree, the Saviour of those who do 
not believe. But how are we to reconcile these pas- 
sages with the far stronger texts before alluded to ? 
The most probable explanation is that they are merely 
general statements, indicating the final destiny of the 
vast majority of mankind, but that there are excep- 
tions to this as to most other rules. And the Creed, 
it should be noticed, nowhere implies that most men 
will be lost ; it may be only a few obstinate sinners. 
Moreover, there ,is this further difficulty : what is to 
become of the evil angels ? If we are to admit endless 
misery for these, why not for man? And yet the 
Bible gives no hint that the Devil is to be eventually 
reconciled to God. 

There is also another great difficulty, for we cannot 
think that the wicked will be allowed to go on sinning 
in heaven, so they must finally cease to commit sin. 


Many will no doubt do this voluntarily, and their case | 


+ £.g., Col. 1.20; 1 Tim. 4. 10:; 1. John™2. 2; Revs Brg. 


Mi Se alk ; 
OE i ae eh + inthe he 


THE THREE CREEDS. } 559 


presents little difficulty ; but what about the remainder? 
If they must finally forsake sin, whether they like it or 
not, it destroys their free will, and leads to compulsory 
goodness, which is very like a contradiction in terms. 
For goodness cannot be ascribed to mere machines 
without free will, which only act under compulsion ; 
and yet on this theory the men would be nothing 
more. In fact, the wicked men would in reality have 
been destroyed, and a good piece of mechanism created 
instead ; and this scarcely seems a probable theory. 

(3). Their annihilation. 

Lastly, as to the other and only possible alternative, 
“the annihilation or final destruction of the wicked. 
This may be more accurately described as their failure 
to obtain everlasting life. Immortality is here regarded 
~ not as the attribute of all men, but as being conditional 
on a man’s fulfilling certain duties and developing a 
certain character in this life. And the wicked, not 
having done this, will eventually be destroyed and 
cease to exist. Numerous texts can be quoted in 
favour of this theory.! And it is also supported by the 
analogy of nature: for if an organism or a species 
is a failure, it eventually ceases to be. It is not kept 
alive for ever as a disfigurement to the world. 

This theory, no doubt, presents less moral difficulties 
than either of the others, but it is not free from them. 
For are the wicked to be punished after death previous 
to their annihilation? If they are not, justice is 
not satisfied ; and while excessive punishment seems 
a reflection on God’s character, no punishment at all 

mr 2 onn 6) $1; bf. 33kom.:6. 23°;Matt. 10. 25, 


560 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XXIII. 


for prosperous sinners seems equally so. And yet, on 
the other hand, any punishment which precedes an- 
nihilation seems merely vindictive, and of no possible 
use. Anyhow, this theory cannot be said to be so 
probable as to render any other incredible. And of 
the two other possible theories, the endless misery of 
the wicked seems on the whole less difficult to believe 
than their endless happiness ; while, as we have seen, 
it is also the one most strongly supported by Scripture. 
And therefore, the Athanasian Creed, in asserting this 
doctrine seems fully justified. 

One remark may however be made in conclusion, 
and it brings a little comfort into this saddest of all 
truths. It is that whatever doubt may exist as tc 
the future state of the wicked, of one thing we may 
be quite sure—that their punishment will not be in 
excess of what they deserve. They will be equitably 
dealt with ; and every merciful allowance will be made 
for circumstances, including the inherent weakness of 
human nature. Christianity indeed seems to empha- 
sise this more than any other religion, since men are 
to be judged not by the Father, but by the Son; 
apparently for the very reason that, being Man, He can 
sympathise with human weakness.1 And after the 
judgment, persons will enjoy heaven just in proportion 
as their lives on earth have rendered them capable of 
doing so, while the misery of the lost will also be in 
exact proportion to what they deserve. 

(C). THE IMPORTANCE OF A RIGHT BELIEF. 

The last doctrine to be considered is that of the 

1° John. 5. 27. 


THE THREE CREEDS. 561 


importance of a Right Belief. This is strongly in- 
sisted on in the warning clauses of the Athanasian 
_ Creed ; so we will first consider their meaning, then 
their truthfulness, and lastly, the objection as to 
dogmatism. 

(1.) The meaning of these clauses. 

Before discussing this, it may be pointed out that 
they are often called the damnatory or uncharitable 
clauses ; but both these terms are somewhat mis- 
leading. For the Church does not condemn anyone 
by these clauses, but merely declares that certain 
persons will be condemned by God, which is a very 
different thing. No one desires their condemnation, 
but the contrary ; and therefore, believing the danger 
to be a fact, it is stated in the hope that persons 
may in consequence avoid it. An analogy may help 
to illustrate this distinction. Suppose a despotic 
ruler in some island were to put up a notice that 
anyone walking along a certain part of the coast would 
be arrested and shot; this might well be called un- 
charitable. But now, suppose the notice was that, 
owing to there being quicksands along that part of 
the coast, anyone walking there would be drowned ; 
this might be untrue, but it could scarcely be called 
uncharitable. And similarly with the Athanasian 
Creed. Its warnings (whether true or false) are in 
no sense uncharitable. They are also quite different 
from some of the Psalms (e.g., 109.), where the writer 
does not merely state that the wicked will be miserable, 
but prays that they may be so. This no doubt seems 
uncharitable, but there is nothing like it in the Creed. 

36 


562 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXIII. 


What the Creed asserts is that holding (or retaining 
hold of) the Catholic Faith, especially the doctrines 
of the Trinity and the Incarnation, is necessary to 
salvation (vv. I, 28, 29, 42); and that those who do 
not keep (or preserve) this Faith will pevzsh everlast- _ 
ingly (v. 2). This word keep, it should be noticed, 
implies previous possession, since a man cannot keep 
what he never had ; so the verse is obviously inapplic- 
able to heathens, infidels, or even nominal Christians, 
who have never really held the Catholic Faith. It 
refers only to apostates—to those who, having once 
held the Faith, do not keep it ; and all will admit that 
the position of an apostate is not like that of another 
man. Moreover, there can be little doubt that the 
apostasy here referred to was not that due to intel- 
lectual doubt, but rather to giving way, under 
persecution. For the Gothic conquerors of Southern 
Europe, where the Creed was composed about the 
fifth century, were all Arians, and they much perse- 
cuted the Catholics. And therefore a statement of 
what the Catholic Faith really was (in opposition to 
Arianism) might well contain warnings as to the 
great danger of abandoning it under trial and persecu- 
tion. 

The exact meaning of to perish is no doubt much 
disputed, both here, and in the similar passage in the 
Gospel, where Christ says that all who believe on Him 
shall not perish, but have eternal (or everlasting) life ; 
which certainly implies that those who disbelieve, or 
cease to believe, shall perish, and shall mot have ever- 

1 Bishop Dowden, Helps from History, 1897, p. 8. 


* 


THE THREE CREEDS. 563 


lasting life, ¢.c., shall perish everlastingly.1_ But what- 
ever Christ meant by these words, the Creed means 
too, neither more nor less ; and they. certainly need 
not mean the same as going into everlasting fire, which 
the Creed expressly- limits to those who have done 
evil. The words would be quite satisfied by annihila- 
_tion, or even by a permanent failure to obtain the j oys 
of heaven, without actually ceasing to exist. 

Combining these statements then, we arrive at the 
following result : that holding the Catholic Faith and 
living a good life are both necessary to salvation or 
endless happiness in its fullest sense; that a bad life 
leads to endless misery ; and that apostasy leads to 
perishing everlastingly. But as to what will be the 
fate of those who, though they have never held the 
Faith, yet lead a good life, the Creed says nothing. 
These, then, are the warning clauses ; and it need only 
be added that it is nowhere implied that belief in 
these clauses themselves is necessary to salvation, but 
only belief in the great Christian Doctrines, such as the 
Trinity, and the Incarnation. 

(2.) The truthfulness of these clauses. 

Having thus shown what the warning clauses actually 
mean, we have next to consider whether they are true. 
Now, it is plain from the nature of the case that man 
can know nothing on such a subject, except what is 
revealed by God. Is then this doctrine stated or | 
implied in the New Testament ? © Certainly it is, since 
belief in Christ is everywhere laid down as necessary to 
salvation. He is not one Saviour among many, nor is 

1 John 3. 16. 
36—2 


564 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXIII. 


Christianity one means among many of getting to 
heaven. But Christianity is always represented as the 
only means, and Christ as the only Saviour. We have 
already alluded to one text on this subject ; and we 
will now quote five others, each from a different 
writer. We are told that while he that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved, he that disbelieveth shall be 
condemned ; that unless men believe in Christ they 
shall die in their sins; that His is the only Name 
under heaven wherein men can be saved ; that public 
confession of Him as Lord, together with belief in His 
Resurrection, leads to salvation, and that His Blood 
alone can redeem us from our sins.* 

And the early Christians acted in entire accordance | 
with this. When, for instance, the gaoler at Philippi 
asked St. Paul, What must I do to be saved ? the answer 
was, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved? 
Repentance, baptism, and amendment of life, would 
of course follow in due time, but first of all, before all 
other things, it was necessary that he should believe in 
Christ. This was the great essential. 

Now it is obvious that the belief in Christ, which is 
thus everywhere insisted on, must mean believing the 
truth about Christ, and not a false belief. If, then, 
the statements in the Creed represent the truth about 
Christ, as we have shown they do, then belief in these ~ 
is necessary to salvation. And the truth about Christ 
must include His relationship to God the Father, 2.e., 
the doctrine of the Trinity ; so that the warning clauses 


1 Mark 16. 16; John 8.24; Acts 4. 12; Rom. 10.9; 1 Pet. 1. 19. 
? Acts 16. 31. 


THE THREE CREEDS. 565 


as to the importance of a right belief (including, we 
may add the danger of apostasy),! seem fully justified 
by Scripture. 

Four further remarks may be made before leaving 
this subject. The first is that the Creed is addressed 
to Christians only. This is clear not only from its 
history, for it was composed solely for Christians, but 
also from the opening sentence, Quicunque vult salvus 
esse, which means literally, ‘Whoever wishes to be 
saved ’; and this takes for granted that the persons 
addressed have heard of salvation. It cannot there- 
fore be held to refer to any but Christians, no matter 
how general the language may be. In the same way 
a royal proclamation might contain the words every 
man, but they would only refer to the king’s own 
subjects and not to foreigners. 

As to what will be the future of heathen, and pre- 
Christian races, the Creed says nothing, and we know 
nothing. Many think that the joys of heaven will be 
spiritual joys, of an altogether higher order than any- 
thing we can imagine ; and such as are only possible 
for persons possessing a spiritual life, ¢.¢., those who 
have been born again in Theological language. And 
that therefore persons without this life, such as the 
heathen, cannot possibly share in these joys (i.e., can- 
not be saved in the fullest sense), just as an animal, 
without an intellect, cannot share in intellectual joys. 
_ But they may yet, if they have lived good lives accord- 
ing to their conscience, enjoy the fullest amount of 
natural happiness, in what we may call a lower heaven, 
. 1 Heb. 6. 4-6; 2 Pet. 2. 21. 


566 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. © cHap. xxl. 


and without feeling any disappointment at not having _ 
these higher spiritual joys. But this is only a con- 
jecture. 

Others take a more hopeful view, and think that 
the Gospel will be preached to the heathen in the 
Intermediate State between Death and Judgment, with- — 
out, however, involving any fresh probation on their 
part ; since, as far as we know, man’s probation can 
only take place when he is man, that is, when his spirit 
and body are united together ; and we are specially 
told that he is to be judged for things done 7m the 
body. In the Intermediate State, he is not man, but 
spirit only. And assuming, as is probable, that the 
heathen have sufficient opportunities in this life for 
testing their character, those who have done good will 
of course accept the revelation of Christ when offered 
to them and will thus be eventually in the same position 
as Christians. But this again is only a conjecture. 

Secondly, among Christians the Creed is intended 
chiefly for theologians. This is plain from its technical 
language, and it seems only fair to assume that children 
and unlearned ‘persons belonging to a Church holding 
these doctrines would be considered as believing them, 
unless they actually disbelieved them. But though a 
child’s belief,2 which has nothing intellectual about it, 
and is merely trust and love, may be sufficient for a 
child, and for those with child-like intellects, some- 
thing more may reasonably be expected from well- 
instructed Christians. And this is that they should 
believe these doctrines rightly (v. 29), though this 1s a 

1) 2 Cor. S16. 2 Matt. 18. 6. 


THE THREE CREEDS. 567 


most unfortunate translation of the Latin word 
fideliter, as it seems to connect it with the right fatth 
of the following verse. It would be better rendered 
by faithfully, as it is in v. 42, or heartily. A heartfelt 
belief in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarna- 
tion—a belief which has no reservation in it, no 
‘perhaps’ about it—a belief which leads to worshi9, 
for “ the Catholic Faith is that we worshtf one God ’:— 
is what the Creed says is so essential, rather than a 
correct, or scientifically accurate one, though this 
latter, this right faith (fides recta) is fully described 
for the benefit of theologians, and to prevent a recur- 
rence of old and oft-refuted errors. 

Thirdly, the statements in the Creed are only general 
_ rules , and here as elsewhere there may be exceptions 
to such rules. Of course it may be said that these - 
ought to be hinted at in the Creed itself, and doubtless 
many would prefer this being done. But strictly 
speaking we have no right to make any exceptions to 
God’s rules, though God Himself can of course do so. 
And therefore as the New Testament lays down that 
belief in Christ is necessary to salvation, this must be 
stated plainly ; though we may both hope and believe 
that God will make exceptions wherever unbelief or 
misbelief has not been due to a person’s own fault. 

Lastly, it seems certain that persons 7m heaven must 
believe the truth about God. Indeed, we can scarcely 
imagine their holding erroneous ideas on such a sub- 
ject. If, then, the statements in the Creed represent 
the truth about God, and if persons who go to heaven 
must believe the truth about God, it follows as a 


= 


568 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. | cHAP. XXIII. 


logical necessity that no person can go to heaven who 
does not believe these statements ; in other words, that 
except a man believe the Catholic Faith he cannot be 
saved. Our conclusion, then, as to the warning clauses 
is this, that if the other statements in the Creed are true, 
these clauses do not present any great difficulty. 

(3.) The objection as to dogmatism. . 

An important objection has still to be considered. 
It is that the Athanasian Creed dogmatises too much. 
Granting, it is said, that all its doctrines are deducible _ 
from the New Testament, yet why not _be content with 
the simpler statements in the Apostles’ and Nicene 
Creeds ? These were sufficient for the Church for 
several centuries, so why not leave other matters open 
for discussion, instead of treating them as closed ques- 
tions ? We will consider these four points in turn. 

And first as to dogmatism. Christian dogmatism has 
been well defined as devotion to truth for truth’s sake ; 
since what but a love of truth could induce men to 
argue about such questions as the Falioque clause ? 
And truth, it should be noticed, is necessarily exclu- 
sive. If I believe a certain statement to be true, it is ~ 
not uncharitable, but merely logical, to say that every 
statement inconsistent with it is false. Now on every 
other subject which influences our conduct, @.g., 
diseases, science, etc., it is admitted to be of great 
importance that we should know the truth and act 
accordingly. Why, then, should it be thought that 
in Religion alone this is immaterial, and that a false 
Creed is as good as the true one, if a man honestly 
believes it ? 


THE THREE CREEDS. 569 


Moreover, a certain amount of dogmatism in matters 
of Religion seems essential. No man can intelligently 
serve or pray to a God of whose Nature he has formed 
no conception, and the moment he begins to form such 
a concepton he is beset by difficulties. Take for 
example what some will consider the simplest possible 
prayer, May God forgive my sins for Christ's sake. 
Who, we may ask, is God ; who is Christ ; what is the 
relation between them ; why should One be asked to 
forgive for the sake of the Other; and what would 
happen if the sins were not forgiven ? Such difficulties 
cannot be avoided; and if the statements in the 
Athanasian Creed are their true solution, the more 
clearly this is stated the better, no matter how difficult 
they may be. 

In the next place, it is very doubtful whether the 
_ earlier Creeds are simpler and more easy to believe than 
the Athanasian. To a thoughtful reader it may well 
seem otherwise. For example, referring to the Trinity, 
the Apostles’ Creed teaches us to believe in God the 
Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy 
Ghost, but it does. not attempt to answer the simplest 
questions concerning them. Are they, for instance, all 
three Persons ? if so, are they all three Divine ? and if 
so, are they three Gods? And the Nicene Creed is 
even more puzzling, for it first asserts that there is one 
God the Father, and soon afterwards it says that the 
Son is also God. And so in regard to the Holy Spirit, 
He is called the Lord, and yet it has been already stated 
that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. How can 
all this be reconciled ? 


570 THE TRUTH*OF* CHRISTIANITY .~\ CHAP.;xXXIE: 


And much the same applies to the future state of 
the wicked. The two earlier Creeds assert the resur- 
rection of the body and the life everlasting; and 
assuming that both the good and the bad share in 
the resurrection, do they both share in the life ever- 
lasting 2? And if not, what is to become of the bad ? 
These and many other questions are suggested by the 
earlier Creeds, and answered by the Athanasian. 
And to many it seems easier to believe the Creed 
which answers difficulties, than those which Merehy 
suggest them. 

And it was for this very purpose of answering 
difficulties, not making them, that the Athanasian 
Creed was composed. Men would not accept the bare 
statements of the earlier Creeds without explanation 
or comment. They would have them explained, or 
else would explain them for themselves. And it was 
to prevent their doing this wrongly that the true 
explanation was finally adopted by the Church. The 
Creed, then, was not composed for the sake of assert- 
ing any new docrtines, still less as implying that those 
previously received were not sufficient, but merely to 
prevent them from being misunderstood. All the 
doctrines, as we have seen, are contained in the New 
Testament, and they were in consequence always 
believed by Christians. But it was not till after 
much controversy that men learnt to express this 
belief with scientific clearness and precision. 

And lastly, as to these doctrines being closed ques-— 
tions. They are closed questions in much the same 
way as the Copernican theory in astronomy is a 


THE THREE CREEDS. | 571 


closed question. That is to say, they have been 
thoroughly discussed, and (to those who believe the 
New Testament) the evidence in their favour is over- 
whelming. Of course anyone may go over the proofs 
again for himself, and if he wants to have an intelligent 
belief he should do so; but’ as a rule of conduct the 
- subject cannot be re-opened. 

And it should be noticed that the Church, in thus 
treating certain questions as closed for its members, 
is only acting as other societies would do. Would a 
society of engineers, for instance, allow one of their 
members to construct an iron bridge on the supposi- 
tion that the expansion of iron by heat was an open 
question, which he might, or might not, think worth 
allowing for? Or would a society of doctors allow 
one of their members to attend patients if he asserted 
that whether scarlet fever was infectious or not was 
an open question, which each patient might decide for 
himself ? In short, well-ascertained truth, or what is 
believed to be such, in every department of knowledge 
is looked upon as a closed question ; and it must remain 
so, unless some important fresh evidence is produced. 
But with regard to the Creeds, no fresh evidence can 
be produced, unless God were to give a fresh Revela- 
tion. And, therefore, from the nature of the case they 
are closed questions in an even stricter sense than 
ascertained truths on other subjects. 

This concludes a brief examination of the doctrines 
contained in the Three Creeds, and all of them are 
either contained in, or logically deducible from, the 

New Testament. 


GHAPTER UX XLV: 


THAT THEREFORE THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN 
RELIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE. 


(A.) THE EvIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties, 
and no more obvious proof ? considered in detail. 


(B.) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 


WE have now examined all the more important argu- 
ments for and against the truth of Christianity. Many 
of them, as we have seen, are of great complexity, and 
we have often been obliged to consider a few examples 
only of various classes of facts ; but it is hoped that 
no important argument on either side has been entirely 
overlooked. One remaining objection has still to be 
considered. 

(A.) THe EvipENcES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

Does not, it is urged, this very fact of itself form a 
difficulty 2? Can an ordinary man be expected to 
ponder over arguments, objections, and counter-argu- 
ments by the dozen, even supposing the balance of 
probability to be in favour of the Religion ? Surely, if 
Christianity were true, and God wished men to believe 
it, there would not be so many difficulties. He would 
have provided an easier way of proving it than this ; 

BY fea 


’ ; 
A Neues 
—— 


TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 573 


or, at all events, if this elaborate argument were gone 
into, the inference in its favour would be simply over- 
whelming. This is a difficulty felt perhaps by some 
who have read the present Essay ; fortunately it can 
be answered satisfactorily. 

And first, as to there being so many difficulties. 
Several of these are simply due to the evidence in 
favour of Christianity being so strong. If, for example, 
we had only one Gospel instead of four, the difficulties 
caused by the discrepancies between them would dis- 
appear, but the argument in favour of Christianity 
would not be strengthened in consequence. But still 
putting aside these, it must be admitted that there are 
many difficulties connected with the Religion. 

But what is the cause of this ? It is the very magni- 
tude of the Christian Religion which opens the way for 
so many attacks. A religion which claims to be the 
only true one in the world ; to have been founded by 
God Himself ; to have been prepared for by prophecies 
and introduced by miracles ; to be the pivot on which 
history turns—all previous history leading up to it, and 
all subsequent history being moulded by it ; to be suit- 
able for all ages and countries ; to hold the key to all 
mental and moral problems ; to be man’s guide and 
comfort in this life, and his only hope for the next ;— 
such a religion must be assailable at a great many 
points. But provided all these assaults can be repelled, 
provided this long frontier-line, so to speak, can be 
properly defended, it does not show the weakness of 
the religion ; on the contrary, it shows its enormous 
strength. A religion which made less claims would, no 


> 


574 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cuHap. xxiv. 


doubt have less difficulties ; but it would be less likely 
to be the true one. If God became Incarnate, no claims 
can be too vast for the Religion He founded. And to 
many this ineffable greatness of Christianity, so far from 
being a difficulty, constitutes one of its greatest charms. 

And next, as to there being no easter means of proof. 
It is a simple matter of fact that the vast majority of 
men, both educated and uneducated, who believe in 
Christianity, have not arrived at this belief through a 
long line of reasoning, such as is summarised in this 
Essay. They assert that there is an easier road to it. 
They say that God has given them a faculty of Faith, 
which, though it may be hard to explain, just as 
man’s free will is hard to explain, does give them 
the most perfect conviction of the truth of Christianity. 
And starting with this inward conviction, it is con- 
firmed, they say, by their daily experience just as a 
man’s belief in his free will is confirmed by his daily 
experience ; though doubtless the actual facts of life 
may be otherwise explained in each case. Of course, 
this appeal to faith is no argument to those who do not 
possess it. On the other hand, to those who do possess 
it, no arguments can appreciably weaken or strengthen 
it. Itisa thing sw generis, and absolutely convincing. 


It maybe pointed out, however, that if man is a 


partly spiritual as well as a partly material being, 
which we have already admitted, the existence of some 


spiritual sense or faculty by which to appreciate 


spiritual truths, just as the body has material senses 
by which to appreciate material objects, is not on prima 
facie grounds incredible. And this is what faith claims 


TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 575 


to be; it isa means of spiritual discernment, and may 
be compared to eyesight. It does not enable us to 
believe what we might otherwise think to be untrue ; 
but it enables us to know for certain, what we might 
otherwise think to be only probable (e.g., the existence 
of God). In the same way a blind man might, by 
feeling, think it probable that there were a certain 
number of pictures in a room, but could he see he would 
know for certain. And just as a man, who had always 
been blind, ought not to reject the testimony of those 
who see, so a man who has no faith ought not to reject 
_ the testimony of those who have. 

Still, it may be asked, why should some persons be 
given this faculty of faith, while others are not ? The 
subject is no doubt a difficult one, but it is only part of 
a more general difficulty: why should any of God’s 
blessing be unequally distributed in this world ? And 
yet they are. Doubtless if we knew more about man’s 
~ future destiny we should see there was no real injustice 
in either case. But the subject need not be further 
considered here, since, as said above, no arguments can 
prove or disprove Christianity to those who believe by 
faith. 

But now comes the most important part of the objec- 
tion. Granting, it is said, that the subject is necessarily 
a difficult one, and demands a long investigation, yet 
when we do go through the arguments on both sides, 
the conclusion is not irresistible. In short, why are not 
the evidences in favour of Christianity stronger? Of 
course they might be so, but we have no reason for 
thinking they would be. In our ordinary daily life we 


576 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.  cHap. xxiv. 


have never absolute certainty to guide us, but only 
various degrees of probability. Moreover, in Natural 
Theology the reasons for believing in a Personal God 
and the responsibility of man, though to most persons 


quite convincing, are certainly not irresistible, since, as 
a matter-of fact, some men resist them. And if God © 


intends us to act upon such evidence in common life, 
_and also with regard to the great truths of Natural 
Theology, why should He not do the same with regard 
to Christianity ? He seems, if we may use the word, 
to vespect man’s momentous attribute of free will even 


in matters of Religion ; and therefore in His sight a_ 


right belief, like right conduct, may be of no value un- 
less it is more or less voluntary. It is to be a virtue, 
rather than a necessity. And this fully accounts for 
the evidences of Christianity not being overwhelming. 
They are amply sufficient to justify conviction ; but 
they are not, and were probably never meant to be, 
- sufficient to compel it. 

If, however—and this is a matter of practical impor- 


tance—they are strong enough to show that the Re- ~ 


ligion is probably true, a man who admits this is obyi- 
ously bound to accept it.. He cannot adopt a neutral 
attitude, because the evidence_is not demonstrative ; 
for, as we have said, in every other subject probability, 
not certainty, is the guide of life; and why should 
religion alone be different ? And then, if he accepts 
it, he is obviously bound to try and live accordingly, 
no matter what the sacrifice may be ; for Christianity, 
if it is worth anything, is worth everything. Such 
tremendous truths cannot be half acted on if believed, 


ae ad >. - 


TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 577 


any more than they can be half believed ; it must be a 
case of all for all. | 

Lastly, it may be pointed out that though perhaps 
the evidences of Christianity are not so strong as we 
should expect, they are of precisely such a kind as 
we should expect. It was prepared for by prophecy ; 
introduced by miracles ; has influenced the world ever 
since ; and in addition to all external evidences, strongly 
appeals to human nature. On the other hand, the 
Christian doctrines are not what we should have antici- 
pated. Thus the former are level with man’s under- 
standing, while the latter are far above it. And this 
would be only natural if Christianity were a revelation 
from God. Its doctrines would be above human reason : 
_ its evidences would appeal to human reason. 

And as we should also expect, its evidences exhibit 
each of the three great attributes of the Deity.>sHig 
Omnipotence is shown in the miracles, His Omniscience 
in the prophecies, and His perfect Goodness in the 
Character of Christ ; so that, judged by its evidences, 
this Religion is one which might very reasonably have 
come from the God Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and 

All-Good. 

_ (B.) SumMARY AND CONCLUSION. 

It now only remains to give a summary of the 
previous chapters, and then point out the final choice 
of difficulties. f 

In Chapter XIII. we considered the credibility of the 
Christian Religion, and decided that some of its leading 
doctrines, especially those referring to the Incarnation 
and the Atonement, seemed to be most improbable. 


Sy; 


578 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXIV. 


This is what may be called the philosophical objection 
to Christiantiy. All that can be said on the other side 


is practically this, that we have no adequate means of. 


judging ; and that when we apply similar reasoning to 
subjects about which we do know, such as the freedom 
of man or the existence of evil, it generally leads us 
wrong. But still the fact remains that the Religion 
appears most improbable. 

In Chapter XIV. we considered the external testimony 
to the Four Gospels, and decided that there was ex- 
tremely strong testimony in favour of their authen- 
ticity. At the close of the second century they held 
the same place among Christians as they do at present ; 
during the middle of that century Justin shows that 
they were publicly read, together with the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures ; while the few earlier writers whose 
works have come down to us, also seem to have known 
them. 

In Chapter XV. we considered their internal evidence 
and found that it strongly supported the above con- 
clusion ; so that combining the two, we have an almost 
overwhelming argument in favour of their genuineness. 


In Chapter XVI. we considered a collateral argument 


of great importance, derived from the Acts of the 
Apostles. There are strong reasons for fixing the date 
of this book at A.D. 60; and if so it proves a still 
earlier date for the first three Gospels. 

In Chapter XVII. we considered the evidence derived 
from the Gospels, and the undisputed Epistles of St. 
Paul, to the Resurrection of Christ, and we decided that 


it had every appearance of being thoroughly trust- 


TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 579 


worthy. The narratives themselves seemed to be 
simply and candidly written. And the testimony of 
the witnesses was then subjected to the most minute 
and searching inquiry, their Veracity, Knowledge, 
Investigation, and Reasoning being separately con- 
sidered ; and each was found to be supported by what 
seemed to be irresistible evidence. So we must either 
accept this evidence or dispute it, in defiance of all the 
rules of probability, and solely because of the miraculous 
nature of the event vouched for. 

In Chapter XVIII. we considered the other New 
Testament Miracles, and came to the conclusion that 
they also were probably true. Indeed, from their 
alleged publicity, together with the fact that their 
occurrence was, as far as we know, never disputed at 
the time, either by Jews or heathens, the evidence in 
their favour is extremely strong. 

In Chapter XIX. we considered the argument from 
Prophecy ; and discussed in detail the great Passion 
Prophecy of Isaiah, and the Psalm of the Crucifixion, 
and then briefly alluded to several others. And we 
pointed out how completely these prophecies were one 
and, all fulfilled in the Christ of the Gospels, and how 
utterly impossible it was to find any other fulfilment 
of them. So here again the choice lies between accept- 
ing these prophecies, or disputing them simply because 
they are prophecies. In other words, we must face the 
philosophical difficulty of believing in Divine Fore- 
knowledge, or else what we may call the mental diffi- 
culty of believing that all these coincidences were due 
to chance. 

a Y Seater: 


580 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, XXIV. 


In Chapter XX. we considered the Character of 
Christ, and found that this also afforded strong evi- 
dence in favour of Christianity. For the admitted 
excellence of Christ’s moral character seems quite in- 
consistent with deliberate falsehood on His part. And 
yet He kept asserting His superhuman and Divine 
Nature with the utmost emphasis, and was finally put 
to death in consequence. Here, then, once more we 
have the same choice before us ; we must either face 
the philosophical difficulty of believing in Christ’s 
Divinity, or else the moral difficulty of believing that 
the best moral teaching the world has ever had was 
the outcome ofa life saturated with falsehood and 
presumption. 

In Chapter XXI. we considered the History of 
Christianity, and found that its marvellous progress at 
first, in spite of its enormous difficulties, and without 
‘the use of any force, could only be accounted for by its 
truth. So here for the last time we have the same 
alternatives to choose from. We must either face the 
philosophical difficulty of believing in the supernatural 
origin and spread of Christianity, or else the historical 
difficulty of believing that its first preachers were able 
to convince men without evidence, conquer them with- 
out force, and found the greatest kingdom the world 
has ever seen on claims which at the time everyone 
must have known to be untrue. 

In Chapter XXII. we considered the other evidence 
on the subject, and glanced at various arguments for 
and against Christianity, such as its connection with 
the Bible and with prayer, its adaptation to human 


TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 581 


nature, and its relation to other religions ; but all of 
comparative unimportance. 

Lastly, in Chapter XXIII. we decided that the Three 
Creeds are deducible from the New Testament ; so that 
the religion which has all this evidence in its favour is 
the Christian Religion as here defined. 

From the above summary it will be seen that there 
is only one important argument against Christianity, 
and this is the antecedent or philosophical cne. The 
Religion itself, its doctrines, its claims, its miraculous 
origin, all seem most improbable. Thus the objections 
to Christianity all lie on the surface. They are obvious 
and palpable to everyone. They are admittedly great, 
but they will not become greater, and may become less 
as time goes on; for the whole tendency of modern 
science is to decrease the value of a priori reasoning, on 
which alone these difficulties are founded. 

On the other hand, the arguments in its favour have 
often to be sought for ; but when found they are seen 
to be stronger and stronger the more they are ex- 
amined. There are four main arguments. These are 
of a widely different character, and each appeals most 
strongly to a certain class of minds, so each is often 
spoken of as the chief argument for Christianity, but 
they are probably of equal value. They may be con- 
veniently called the argument from Miracles, includ- 
ing of course the Resurrection of Christ, from Prophecy, 
from Christ’s Character, and from History. And it will 
be noticed they mutually support one another. 
Miracles, for instance, are less difficult to believe 
when it is seen that they were to inaugurate a religion 


582 THE TRUTH: OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XXIV. 


which has for centuries exercised a greater influence 
on mankind than anything else; and prophecies 
become stronger when it is seen that the Life foretold 
was one that had such supreme and far-reaching effects. 

Now, it is important to remember that the actual 
facts on which these arguments rest are in each case 
absolutely unique. Once, and only once in the history 
of the world, have men appeared who asserted that 
they were actual witnesses of miracles, and who faced 
all forms of suffering and death solely in consequence 
of this. Again, once, and only once in the history of 
the world, has a long series of prophecies, uttered many 
centuries apart, united in a single Person, in whom 
they one and all find a complete fulfilment. Yet 
again, once, and only once in the history of the world, 
has a Man appeared of faultless moral character, who 
asserted that He was also God, and who boldly claimed 
all that this stupendous assertion involved, and sub- 
mitted to the consequences. While, lastly, once, and 
only once in the history of the world, has a Religion, ~ 
most improbable in itself, and without using any force, 
succeeded in conquering nation after nation. 

These, then, are the four chief arguments on the 
subject, and in every case we have the same choice 
before us. We must either face the philosophical 
difficulties in accepting Christianity, or the mental, 
moral and historical difficulties in rejecting it. There 
is no neutral ground, no possibility of avoiding both 
sets of difficulties. But the difficulties on the one side _ 
concern what we do not know—God’s purpose im 
creating man—and may be due to our ignorance only. 


a a ae Pn —< —- 


he 


TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. «= 583 


The difficulties on the cther side concern what we do 
know. They are practical, they are derived from 
experience. We do know that men will not lay down 
their lives for what they believe to be false, and that 
the first preachers of Christianity must have known 
whether it was false or not.. We do know that pro- 
phecies uttered at random through centuries would 
not all unite in a single Person. We do know that 
even moderately good men do not make extravagant 
claims. And we do know that no natural causes can 
account for such a religion as Christianity obtaining . 
such a triumph as it did. 

The choice, then, seems to lie between what we may 
call unknown difficulties and known ones. The un- 
known difficulty of believing that the Infinite God 
could so love man as to humble Himself even to death 
to win man’s love; and the known difficulty of be- 
heving that evidence so vast and so various, so cumu- 
lative and so apparently irresistible, could all unite in 
making a monstrous falsehood appear to be a momen- 
tous truth. Between these two sets of difficulties we 
have to make our choice. But to those who agree with 
the previous chapters of this Essay the choice cannot 
be doubtful. For here, as with Theism, ovr beliefs 
must follow the line of least resistance ; and, as we 
have shown, however hard it is to believe Christianity, 
it is harder still to disbelieve it. This, then, is our 
final conclusion, that the truth of the Christian religion 
is extremely probable, because, to put it shortly, though 
the difficulties of accepting Christianity are great, the 
difficulties of rejecting it are far greater. 


- ~ 
- ~ 


- 
. 
. 


~ 
~ 


Se Ste gee 


aT. 


' 
Se 


GENESIS. 


24 
26 


4 


Dy hetg : 
15-17,26. 
ee : 
21 


13 


INDEXSOPsTEXTS: 


PAGE 

49. 30 
fen EXxovDus. 
ABS eal ce I eae 
eh Pe Hob 
LY om, y otek eS 3 
AOS La ius 4 246, 
Load O. Ge Zl o ‘ 
Ea Fy tel 2258) 
TSO tees 28 yt 
ISR EL 7 
145 ” 14-25 
468)" >; TO, 
237 8. 2, 7> 18, 19 
TOON gp ted Sy bse 
ISO 2% fs G6 Pe 
hols weak: Roger PP Ae 
SAG hibOst es A 
2487 TOOT : 
ZAG: L234. 
ZANE ae Dey. 
445 ” oe is 
LOZ AGIA 4s 
164 ” i3 < 
445)14, 4° . 
C45 4h, cA el kee 
AS 1 Rac SO. 
163/16. 36 
Too A 7. a4 
186|20. 24 
168 12) e210 
248 | 22. 29, 30 
A074. Zocewe 
164|}24. 4 : 
161 |25. I-10 
161 | 25-28. 
163|29. 14 

584 


160 
169 
172 
180 


34. 220 


” 27 
36-39. 
LEVITICUS. 
4 STO 
6.772 
Ls II 
ena to 
lies 
”? 29 
1 bs Foey. Us) 
L443 
” 34 
16,431 
+ 14, 19 
ba 26 
yah 
18-20. 
18. 20 
| 20-25 
es PAA Ty = 
192-15} tigate 
oh SN 
Bact i 
24. 15 
+ 16 
” 19 
DAT ee i 
” 2 
a ie ; 
ef 14, 15; Cas 
: AX 23 F 
pH RS 
ox GG 
21s, '28;-29 
”? 34 


Nl ait ee i ee 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE PAGE 
NUMBERS 6.22 1 hed 
Ay LO5 4 as oe 180 
” I 174 ” 37-4 192 
(Gin ae TOW Psi 45 169 
i 47-4. 49 TPZ, 19 117 
meee lO, 17, 202 Bip 1 180 
” 33 173 »? 7-10 170 
14 174-) 9. 35 241 
120 2e2 tit. 8 178 
D: 2 130; lI 2 117 
9. 1 174} 4, 2-7 175 
she TO a 2 ee 6 203 
EPA 5 Loe is 8,29 180 
Ibs -2,18 LOOP 4, 10-12 170 
bs 35 Pe: tek, 20 . 2 168 
16. 202, Stay; 308% | 3S 
Eifea?) 2 O74 Lae Teton 20 180 
Toor 15 242s 5 190 
dati 3, 14 TSO ht 2 bess 178 
A es 8617, 31 242 
ae LO 246 | 13 eh iC 
26 LOE ny I-3 4 232 
is II 203 | 14. 178 
ie oO eo gD ica ol zt 80 
> aa : Be ot ea tLe... aE ese Era ek 
a4 2 5 a OCS be 9 : ee, Td 
iw a ~ 1062 5 1 ae ge 
3 BOs te LR 1 ty le Pe TOe 
35. I : Pe iva 2h. Doe, wt AO 
oalak & - 174) 23 . 449, 484 
3 TO. So eaghes!8 iW  5 AN Fa ts peo Se ls BA 
36. 8 ; mete eae Y On. ~) 102 
20. -I P . 
DEUTERONOMY. ye 4 ; ; —e 
5 Bey Se F rears Sy Wek ds Pacts ~ LOS 
dp Sok Ae pt LOD AD Tee Bae Sl bie)s) 
2. 10-12 IBZ 1° 4 Baty, alot 
= 1! 20-23 eto) 257). ; Bae 8 
Bao mcOr26-~ 183) 7° °. 25-64 iter ec. 
ety yy de Te te S74 OAS eve 4 
seye2 3-20 ee 2 | ee OO gy we 160 
Sees tt. 1180 ).29;. 1 : Lal FA 
rene PE Ay Bir ar (ae Fak abit Fé: 
gee: am Rea gerce Ma Wie come ; Sen Liao 
VO Sey Ramee De) 2235 sge en Oy 22, 24 4° 160 
eretesO. I. Se PZAR Oecd 1B! = Sone et 
We AOS iy La wee 27 :* 246 
De. 3 : SR yee St aia oo eto 
Sy eee ht ou 
PAT 18 . 180 JOSHUA. 
eo 5 i ES 2AC Hieet Oy 13... 18S 
ae p POSH: Sel T4-17 Agi 


~ 
~ 


no—— 


ie a oa a 


Ovo ro 


JUDGEs. 
15 
26 
39 
atr~.. 
27, 28 
19 


I. SAMUEL. 


3, 24 
12-30 
3 

4 

T5 

ge) 

6 

23 

16 


II. SAMUEL, 


beoKinges: 


228 
192 
229 
229 


PAGE 
II. Kines. 
OPT is 213 
eae 213 
10-27 214 
6 , DR i 
aE Pas 213 
Bes 192 
4-6 . 190 
gee 216 
15-18 245 
Bees fs 216 
35 i 2A 
8-11 214.22 
II Se 26 
17 229 
: IQI 
16,16 229 
1 a 216 
9 216 
. CHRONICLES. 
9 : <i. 248 
ae +. 246 
. CHRONICLES. 
eno) & al gee 
Osx, 238 
Orn? 1h i233 
24, 3! - 229 
EZRA. 
tp mee vi AO? 
NEHEMIAH. , 
8 F pra Pe 
6 246 
JOB 
6 : . 246 
4, 4 id ps 137 
7 . - 247 
r+". ie 240 
Stale. - 458 
1456; pe ek) 
G.. - 448 
19s ie 249 
26% read 
FG eh 240 


\ 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


12. 


PAGE 
PSALMS. 

- 34. 73 
. . 457 
27 251 
: 167 
9 250 
2 246 
4 eis 
9 240 
18 142 
: 126 
: 167 
; 56% 
4-8 245 
: 205 
2 246 
z 246 
: 126 
5 246 
6 246 
PROVERBS. 

19 246 
3: 246 
4 246 
ECCLESIASTES. 
14 248 
ISAIAH. 
4  .- 450 
1-10 482 
5-10 544 
> ee 468 
3, On. 229 
ya 229 
Ty 2c. 404 
6 404 
21 404 
os. 251 
19-22 219 
Oy 0. 450 
22523 219 
I : 209 
29 246 
5-6 446 
16 238 
10 448 | 


219° 


PAGE 
28 247 
3 483 
8 454 
22 293 
1-6 . 455 
6 484 
8 233 
28 229, 
7 246 
eT 247 
3-5. 2a 
12 246 
5 458 
by eo 455 
6-10 455 
Seas 448 
13-53, 12 447 
16,23 142 
+ 450 
JEREMIAH. 
22 189 
8 181 
16 223 
14 181 
24 246 
9 223 
8-16 229 
10 229 
18 223 
17 246 
Ti ae :. eae 
13, 39, 40. 
26, 37,43. 219 
LAMENTATIONS. 
ee 458 
3 458 
EZEKIEL. 
5 246 
a 181. 
30 142 
12, oe 223 
II-13 222 
15 221 
\ a 221 
13-16 222 
23,20 222 
125 Renee 458 


no 


Ni Se 


O 9 D> oo bo 


. 
- 
. 


PAGE 
DANIEL. 
20-27 214 
467 
26 229 
: 229 
2 551 
HOSEA 
Ta 188 
4 188 
4-6 188 
6 188, 189 
Lia 2Pt3 188 
4 188 
17 223 
9 188 
JOEL. 
31 165 
AMOS, 
of, DEI 188 
I ; 458 
a5 188 
8 , 246 
21-25 188 
5 : -188 
7 238 
9 223 
MIcAH., 
2 : 4604 
NAHUM. 
7 F 219 
8 194 
ZEPHANIAH, 
13-15 219 
~ ZECHARIAH, 
I 323 
8 456 
g-11 465 
9 466 
12 ° cy< a 
12-13 466 
2 : 466 
TOs tS 466 
hie fee 466 
Zr 465 
2,9. 406 


an 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


- 
- 


MALACHI. 


I 
6 


5 


II. Espras. 


3 


MATTHEW. 


PAGE 


446 
246 


446 


PAGE 
6 374 
12 474 
26 38 
28 478 
28 478 
14 316 
se 32 
B Fae 342 
3, 29 332 
ri, - ©. 333 
30 478 
30 341 
31-46 478 
41, 46 Ae: 
Bak i AS 
28 i 4S 
24 gs SS 
38 » 453 
39 ~» 338 
61 « 344 
64 Ree st. 
65 . 487 
8 2. ee 
9 - 323 
Tf - 449 
41 - 458 
430, oh SE OAS 
heart - 450 
63-64 309 
4, I! 407 
9 400 
10, 19 459 
14 401 
15 332 
Ib or 383 
Wii 398 
1S 3% 478 
18-20 402 
19, 20 - 479 


IQ 316, 479, 545 
MARK. 


Sr Nir - 483 
Cie: Aryan kc 
14-20 «2338 
200-o eae 
10 oo Abs 
21 were 
22 >: “439 
29 544, 551 
I-17 mite ce 
39 42 


PAGE 
43 425 
3 448 
5-6 424 
31 344 
36 425 
23 424 
32 330 
I 330 
48 551 
45 - 478 
23 A330 
9 + +390 
14 oD 
24 nae 
32 341, 543 
24 466, 478 
28 2-376 
35 - 457 
36 330, 450 
51 - 334 
58 344 
OA ai 487 
Pe TI. eg AOS 
BO 3731 Say 405 
34 - 330, 450 
I 0 1396 
8 ‘ e376 
II-13 376 
II-14 398 
toe. 383 
15 402 
16 564 
17 425 
18 512 

LUKE 

1-4 . 329 
2 - 334 
3 358, 377 
4 - 327 
68-79 328 
I 365 
2 323 
cae - 543 
Pe 15322) 834/305 
2 : aK Yc 
4 - 483 
22 eee he 
ay ae 322 
36-38 bra ges 
14 1: 423 
22 415, 441 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE 

26-40 419 
I 482 
LOoe: 4 ae 
PL ss Be 
53 ue: AES 22 
13-15 415 
Zero 341 
ees 478 
38 342 
15 432 
31 331 
. 534 
21-22 374 
34 342 
475 

1-2 316 
6 330 
19 480 
38 465 
43 364 
12 390 
21 ois 
27 332 
71 487 
7 322 
35 458 
I Q 396 
4, 23 ors 
9, 33 383 
rn. 376 
II, 37 398 
12." 4OI 
Tas 334 
21 383 
24 22 300 
34 378, 383 
43 400 
47 402 
39 315 

JOHN 

I - 347, 482 
14. See, 
20-27 308 
29-2. I 337 
ts Ei ~ 4438 
Oped re 
12. AE Ps 
Ss ther RS 86: 
17, 22 o37. 
LOT 4s » 344 


- PAGE 


20 EX; Pine £ (e 
3-9 308 


13. 480, 543 
16. . 544, 563 
2A «oa 
27 e337 


18 440, 479, 487 | 
232 - 479 
27 iar «2500 
4 + 335, 344 
32,00), >a gee 
SBa- Fe - »480 
42, 70 341 
5t ays 559 
58 459 
G2o te 378 
27, $1, 4200neae 
32.4 - 440 
37. = 332 
52 aCy . 448 
i246, MLE 
PAE. i Soe 
Sotee ae 
59 + 440, 487 
-34 a Mee 
13-34 - 427 
18. 279, 453 
22 Mme 
30 - 479 
33 - 487 
39 - 440 
2 aa 
8 440, 487 
53 - 440 
55 335 
337 
9 440 
32 512 
34 330 
37 453 
41 482 
45 479 
I 335 
18 335 
28. 337 
I, 23 479 
9, 10 479 
L025 544 
16, 26 545 
Ab rr 516 
28 542 


oT ae ee eee ee eS a 


¥ 
re a a ee 


é 


PAGE 


26 545 
her «7. °300 
ie nd fiedt 
9 ae 337 
28 - 480 
3 at ASD 
5 Sey bal ® 
21 479 
26 A 59 
28 ak 1 
7 - 487 
16 ~ 4405 
28-30 Seint eh 
31 REE 
Phe) BaP She 
37 SD 
39 408, 450 
eet Se 3 Fe 
7 . 401 
17 378, 542 
25 » 398 
28 482 
30 371 
31 343 
I2 337 
13 400 
14 361 
15 383 
AcTs. 
I : » 495 
3 361, 371, 389 
reo We Sra 2 
8 382 
15 371 
‘ite > 544 
22 369, 373, 384 
22 427, 483 
24 - 369 
31 - 369 
38 544, 547 
41 weA02 
6 483 
See wr 456 
Eber.» 360,407 
eles: ae OT 
5-22 eA27 
LOS 2 . 369,483 
ee a Pieeie it 
ie 334 
3,4. 544 
30. 369 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE 

36 349 
ah 324 
5 358 
58 Ser 
5- 13, 26-40 358 
16. 547 
IO 395 | 
IO yo o85 | 
38 - 427| 
40 . 369 
41 ado 
28 a. t05 
I mae = 
F,.20 mask 
12 4s 334 
21-23 - 349 
7 - 349 
30 - 369 
31 371, 379 
35-37 - 369 
I-II oh bea ee 
22 re GX 
9 » 395 
9-40 Wo ae 
16-18 oue yz 
18, 26 oA?) 
22 746 35) 
cate e. 564 
6 Met 17. 
22-31 300M 
28 aoe 
31 - 369 
34 » 495 
2 355, 365 
12 - 349 
2 ie - 546 
Slee -394),355 
29-39 S303 
38 349 
2 355 
Ake 3601 
4, 22 ao 5 
5-21, 18 357 
25: Be Ee 
IO ant 5G 
3 - 429 
17 eS 
24 used 
26 349, 495 
3 » 495 
17 - 354 
13, 14.23% 351 


589 

PAGE 

6,2 369 
8, 19 396 
Ses 349 
Cy ae 365 
1-28, 16 Ly: 
ce ae 365 
2-10 427 
6, 8,9 359 
ee 349 
LF 4: 365 
25 544 

ROMANS. 
23 559 
3 485 
26 544 
Se 390 
ae 485 
at 504 
eee 485 
fs ie 485 
18, 19 428 
19. 355 
23, 25, 30 355 
25, 20 354 
Spi 325 
209 547 
21-23 S pote 
23 (= 495 
. CORINTHIANS. 

14-16 516 
18 516 
23 493 
24 448 
26 495 
8 543 
10 544 
13 516 
9-13 390 
g-I1 505 
6 . 486 
I 369, 395 
2 >. 547 
23-25 327 
4-6 548 
Il - 544 
1-8 32.7; aoe 
3 - 485 
4 369 
5 384 
£3 371 


590 
PAGE 
15. 12-19 309 
Wa a LS 378 
” I 5 4 391 
bs 20 285 
16. 23 547 
II. CoRINTHIANS, 

Bee? oar it cy 544 
6:10 >..-.-485, 566 
Bee IO. 2.300, 40% 
Lae heen mad oe tot 
AQ k 485 
Hi SSPE By Sia R 516 
»» 24-27 390 
SAS | i 395 
5 12 428 
‘ 14 547 

GALATIANS. 
i oe ee Sa -.° 390 
” 1 . 395 
ee SIMS. +5 wes 429 
Piyeh Oey. = .370 
SAO 8 as . 484 
h Poa ; ted 28 
ie 13 449, 484 
per ct m5 LO 
4. 4 277, 485 
One 5 tS we bAT 

EPHESIANS. 
Bo- 14-17 4 ab AS 
4. 4-6 . 486, 548 
wari s5-10 283 

PHILIPPIANS. 
2,0 485. 
een 456 
ae 3 314 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE 
COLOSSIANS. 
16 485 
£7 126 
18 285 
20 558 
9 485 
107 “eee oh 
T4 ~«..) 334; 301 
THESSALONIANS. 
3-5 548 
4 547 
. THESSALONIANS. 
13-14 548 
16 547 
I. TIMoTHY. . 
IO 558 
II. TIMoTHY. 
16 516 
II 361 
TITUS. 
13 485 
PHILEMON. 
24 3601 
HEBREWS. 
5-12 516 
8 485 
I-4. 486 


ROT 


nor 


IP SP aS Bae 


PAGE 
+f 429 
7 516 
‘s 457 
4-6 565 
Vf 544 
14 486 
I. PETER 
2 548 
IO-II 462 
19 564 
is 312 
ll: Perie 
21 516 
21 565 
I. JOHN. 

I Soe 
2 : 7 BSS 
JUDE. 
20-21 548 

REVELATION. 
5 285 
se 484 
18 407 
8 484 
II-14 484. 
13 558 
18 303 
II 551 
13 347 
L548 551 
12, 13 484 


INDEX OF 


PAGE 

ABRAHAM, trust in God 236, 243 
—— promises to » 445 
Account of creation . 133 
Acts of Apostles 348 
—— extreme accuracy 349 
—— unity s 356 
authorship 359 

—— medical language 360 
—— date. : 362 
—— abrupt ending . oe FOR 
—— attitude to Romans. 363 
—— to Fall of Jerusalem. 364 
——third volume . 365 
and Christ’s Divinity 48 3 

—— of Pilate ; 434 
Adam and Eve. 154 
Agrippa, called King 350 
Ambition, the great . Ped 5.32 
Amraphel, or Hammurabi 186 


Analogies and illustrations : 
—— watch showing design 13 


_——massofmachinery . 25 
—— house and tenant. 35 
— — ship in distress . Chee be: 
—— bird in egg ‘ 102 

_—— telegraph clerk . 104 
—— as to revelation 106 

Mont Cenis tunnel 117 
—— telephone. 120 
—— clock and magnet 122 
—— diseases of Normandy 169 
—— solar radiance . 260 
—— similar letters 263 
—— man’s nature 270 
—— parents, children ele fe 
—— paying a debt. 281 
—— vine and branches 283 

body and limbs 283 
—— whirlpool . 288 
—— Indian Mutiny. 364 

journey to London 386 
—— foreigner’s speech 437 
—— man’s portrait . 462 


SUBJECTS. 


PAGE 
Analogies and illustrations : 
—— ingenious robbery 475 
—— founding a religion 492 


going for holiday . 519 


as to prayer; . 521 
—— key fitting lock . 531 
—— astronomy 537 

quicksands 561 
—— royal proclamation 565 
—— infectious diseases 571 
—— long frontier line 573 
Angels, existence. . 416 
—— influence . 416 
—— casting out evil 416 
—— not fellow-creators 468 


—— their future state 551, 558 


Animals, their creation 152 
—— difference from man. 63 
cannot know man 262 
—— not immortal 104 
—— their sufferings . «OE 
Annihilation of wicked 559 
Anthropomorphism . 238 
Antioch in Pisidia 352 
Antiquity of man . vahee 
Apocryphal Gospels, late . 318 
—— not inspired. « . 302 
—— as to the Childhood . 305 
—— and miracles 421 
Apostasy, under trial 562 
Apostles’ Creed, Trinity 569 
Apostolic Fathers 314 
—— the Virgin Birth 318 
—— miracles P 428 
Aquila and Priscilla . 355 
Archeology and O. Test. . 205 
-Archaisms in Pentateuch . 183 
Arianism . 478 
Aristides . 3134430 
Aristion 370, 425 
Ark . : : . 168 
Ascension, the . Roce. 
Ashdod, taken by Sargon . 208 


591 


992 


Assyria, prophecies as to . 
—— army destroyed 
Athanasian Creed, warnings 
—— dogmatism 
Atonement, doctrine of 
—— its naturalness . 

—— Christ not a Third 
——_— prophecies as to 

-——_— and human nature 
—-— and other religions 


Baar and Jehovah 
Baalbec, inscription at 
Babylonia, prophecies 
—— - messengers from 
Baker, the chief ; 
Baptism, Voice at Christ’s 
Baptismal formula, 
—— witness of St. Paul 
—— of Teaching 
—— of Justin . 
Baptist, John the, not so 
named in Fourth 
Gospel . ; 
—_— his imprisonment 
—— and Christ’s miracles 
did none himself 
Barcochba : 
Barnabas, epistle of . 
Bartimeus 
Bashan, bulls of 
Battering-rams : 
Baur, as to miracles . 
——— St. Paul’s Epistles 


aces 


ee 


PAGE 
219 
216 
561 
568 


278 | 


283 
283 
45! 
527 
535 


215 


219 
230 
162 
331 
545 
546 
546 
549 


339 
341 
415 


Beauterne as to Napoleon 293 
Bees, cells of , The ks 7 
Belief, importance of Alec 4,3 ®) 
—— virtue not necessity . 576 
Belshazzar 207 
Beneficence in Nature ao 
—— and Righteousness 93 

in Jewish Religion 247 

and in Christian 281 
Bernice: . SY! 
Berosus, as to Nabonidus 207 

as to Sennacherib 7A iy | 
Bethel, altar at 229 
Bethlehem, Birth at 464 

infants at . ; 436 
Bethsaida, miracle at 424 
‘Beyond Jordan’ . 183 
Bible, mistakes in O. Test. 204 

in N. Test. 331 

inspiration 515 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Bible source of Nat. Theo- 
logy : ; 

Blood and water 

Bourguet . : 

Bread, miracle as to) 

Brotherhood of man 

Butler 

By-product, pain isa 


C2SAR, no early MSS. 
Cesarea, Philip at 

Cain. 

Canaan, its peculiarities 
Canaanites destroyed 
Cannibalism at Jerusalem . 
Capernaum, visit to. 
Carnivorous animals 
Cause, must be free . 
Cells of bees 

Celsus, Christ’s mir acles 
Cenis, tunnel in Mont 
Census of Israelites . 
—— at Christ’s birth 
Chabas 

Chance, really impossible . 
Changelessness, moral 
Chiefman of Malta 
Child of God; man is a 
Child’s belief ; 
—— temptations . 
Chorazin, its significance . 
Christ, His character ~* 
—— teaching 

—-— sinlessness 

—— in Old Test, 

—— claims 

—— hard sayings 

to discourses 

Divinity 

——_— His own claims’ . 
—— seeing Him seeing God 
—— witness of SyneEaa 
—— of St. John 


350, 


—— of “Revelation 

+ of StPaul’s Epistles 
—— of Hebrews P 
—— of Early Fathers 
—_— of Aristides 

—— of Christ’s enemies 
—— of Pliny 

—— of Jewish prophecies . 


451, 


463 


—_— Man as well as God 481, 542 


—__— influence in world 


512 


¥ 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


: ; PAGE 
Christ, prophecies as to 


445 

—— Tepresentative Man . 283 
—— the perfect Example. 274 
—— the Jewish Messiah . 446 
the only Saviour 564 


Christianity, meaning of 3, 255 


—— its leading doctrines. 256 
—-— its improbability 291 
—— preparation for st AGO 
—— based on Resurrec- 
tion : si 368 
-—— public miracles . 426, 513 
—— its early triumphs . 4092 
subsequent history 502 
———- effect on world . 503 
—— future prospects 508 
-— its indestructibility sy FEO 
—— and Bible. , 515 
—— and prayer BIg 
—— and human nature 525 
and other religions 533 
—— its uniqueness 5Q7 
its evidences Re RIS 
_—— its ineffable greatness 574 
no half measures 576 
Classical writers, miracles. 435 
_—— no early MSS. 300 
Claudius ; d - 494 
Clean and unclean animals 178 
_ Clement of Alexandria aro 
Clement of Rome, witness 
; to Gospels 314 
—— early martyrdoms 390 
—— doctrine of Trinity 548 | 
Cleopas . : S306. 392 
Clock and magnet 122 


Closed questions : ay iGO 
Coincidences, superhuman 


or designed . 1a A 
(see Undesigned) 

Conclusion in search of pre- 
mises : } 1a} 2009 
Conscience, man has nF 4 OI 
an intermediary a Viney 
—— the Voice of God ol pen ey | 
Conservation of energy . Z 
=—— and man’s will . ome RF 
Constantine’s vision . 399 


Copyists of Bible, accuracy 204 


Crabs, and sense of pain . 82 
Creation . : ; ‘ 4 
—— the greatest miracle . 123 


—— account of, in Genesis 
=—days of 


133 
135 


Creation and evolution 
—— not out of nothing 


Creator, meaning of term . 
Credentials, of messenger . 


Credible, meaning of 
Creeping things 


Crucifixion, Psalm of the 
—— no Jewish punishment 


Cyprus, proconsul at 
Cyrenius (see Quirinius) 


DAMNATORY clauses . 
Daniel, Book of 
Darkness over land . 
David, character 


——not subject of Ps. 22. 


Days of creation 
Dead, offerings for 
Death 


Decalogue, its excellence . 


—— witness to Exodus 


Definitions, credible . 
—— design 

—— dogmatism 
evidential miracles 
—— evolution . 

—— free force . 

—— inspiration 

—— instinct 

—— law of nature 
—— material universe 
—— natural force 
—— omnipotence 
—— omniscience 

—— origin ; ; 
—— personal being . 


—— representative terms. 


—— revelation 

—— supernatural force 

Deism ; 

Delphi, inscription 

Demoniacal possession 

Desert, of Shur. 

—— laws suitable for 

—— journeys in 

—— wind. ; ; 

Design, meaning of . 

—— evidence ina watch 

——inaneye. ; 

—— throughout nature 

—— beneficent 

—— need not be desire 

—— man can i P 
3 


preserved in Temple . 


594 


PAGE | 


Design, animals cannot . 64 
——and instinct. vi OF 
Determinism . 3 a2 


Deuteronomy, finding of; -S1gi 


Diabolical miracles 213 
Dial, shadow on 229 
Diana of Ephesus 353 
Diatessaron of Tatian 309 
Didache (see gloria 
Didrachma -.. 359322 
Diet in Egypt . : 168 
Difficulties, known and un- 
known . 583 
—— not explained, _ as to 
Adam and Eve. 154 


—— number of Israelites. 195 


—— diabolical miracles 213 
—— serving other Gods 226 
—— swine at Gadara 419 
—— vows in Ps. 22 . 462 
—— virginity . A474: 
—— endless misery . 557 
Dionysius the Areopagite . 495 
Discoveries, modern . 5-205 
Discrepancies in Gospels 

_ 331, 343 
—— as to Resurrection 374 
—— essential agreement . 379 
Diseases of Egypt 169, 226 
Dispersion of Jews  . 223, 250 


Dissipation of energy : 
Dogmatism, objection to . 568 


Dogs, term.for Gentiles 458 
Double consciousness 418 
—-— farewell, Christ’s ate 1323 
Dreams of Pharaoh . tek 162 
Driver, Prof. 185, 186 
Dry land, appearance of . 145 
Dualism, and evil . BRD 2 
—— in ancient religions . 139 
—— unknown to Jews . 245 
——andendless misery . 552 
EAGLE, Roman ensign 224 
Earth likened tomachine. 25 
Earthquakes. FBO 
Ebal, altar on Mount 108 
Edersheim, as to Lysanias 324 
—— Jews and Isaiah 454 
—— Jews and Psalm 22 . 460 
—— and Christ’s miracles 434 
Edomite kings, list of 2c 586 
Effect, the world is an ite 143 


Egypt, prophecies as to . 221 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE 

Egypt, magicians of. new 
—-— diseases of or 226 
——godsof . “ 166 
—-— religion of. 535 
and the Pentateuch . 161 
language of ‘ s+ B20 
—— Jews return to. 227 
—— periodical census eS 25, 


Eleven, the, ancient term 383 
Elijah’s sacrifice 16, BPG 


Elisha, trivial miracles of . 212 
his bones . . 213 
Elohim . oi OF 
Embalming in Egypt 2 eEROF 
—— Christ’s are - 396 
Emmaus . - 400, 408 
Endless misery . 5 oe 
Energy, dissipation of Ee 7 
—-— conservation of ‘ 7 
—— and free will . <  aST 
Environment . é , 53 
Ephesus, riot at 353 

Epistles of St. Paul, four 
admittedly genuine 327 

—-— witness to some early 
Gospels 2 jag 
—— St. John’s Gospel ates 
accuracy of Acts 354 
—— the Resurrection 369 

—— sufferings of Chris- 
tians 390 
—— Christian miracles 428 
—— Divinity of Christ 485 
—— doctrine of Trinity 547 
—— spread of Christianity 494 


its moral effect . * OS 


Erastus of Corinth 495 
‘Essays and Reviews’ 434 
Eternal punishment . na 
Eternity 290, 530 
Euclid ‘ : 46, 49 
Eusebius, as to Papias 312 
—— Quadratus : - 430 
—— flight to Pella . Se | 


Evangelists, could write 334, 346 
—-— thoroughly truthful . 
—— had known Christ 
—— and miracles 
Everlasting Father, and Son 
—— in Isatah 
Evidences, Christian 
Evil, existence of 
—— physical 

—— moral 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE 

Evil, Jewish idea of . keds 
—— men. ; ‘ pitas pi 85, 
——— Spirits : acd l© 
Evolution, meaning of . 22 
—— requires a Cause : 7 
requires a Designer . 26 
requires a motive wa hal 

—— implies Involution . 38 
—— and human will Le ey 
——andmind , : RSE ps, 
and immortality ; 97 
——aformofcreation . 28 
leads up to man i 15" 


—— shows his importance 7 7 
—— and the Incarnation. 2 78 
in revelation 106, 238 
—— in prophecies . - 446 
—— in account of Creation j 39 
Excuses and reasons . <.°t209 
Experience and miracles . 1 19 
‘ Express image ’ of God 480 
Exterminating Canaanites 241 


Eye, its marks of design . 16 
—— not explained by evo- 

ution . : Se et 

—— shows beneficence . 72 

_ —— its imperfections SP ee 

——frudimentary . 26 


Ezekiel, prophecy of Egypt oad i 


_ Faitu, faculty of 574 
avirtue ., : a SIO 
—— and miracles se AA 
_ False belief : : a ROS 
Falsehood theory of Resur- 
: rection . : OPE i 8 
- —— motives of witnesses . 388 
—— their conduct . rc rsh! 
_——— their sufferings . 389 
—— not now adopted 7 301 
—— only old alternative . 391 
Famine in Egypt. ea 0:3 
= at Jerusalem . ae 22 
- Farewell, Christ’s, Galilee . 373 
-——— Jerusalem ; 27 3 
_ Feeding the 5,000, credible 124 
*——intripletradition . 325 
-——undesigned  coinci- 
: dence : 344 
_—— a public miracle 426 
_—— rationalistic view 439 
Feet pierced « 406 
Felix and Festus 350, 363 


“ Fellow,’ meaning of - 465 


595 
PAGE 
Filioque clause . - 544, 568 
Final state of wicked Sue Sag 
Firmament, or expanse . 144 
—— hot said to be good , 144 
Firstborn from dead 26 ae 
7 —weath’of.the ~. «BOG 
First Cause ; : 9 
—— must be single . . 9 
—— supernatural ‘ 9 
needed no cause 8 
First witnesses of the Re- 
Surrection , - - 385 
Fishes and birds ; SI BEG 


Five hundred, appearance 382 
Flood, parallel passages . 185 


Forces and causes 38° 52 
F oreknowledge, free will . 31 
—— and omniscience RE 3 
——— and prophecies . whup lode 
—— and prayer a STG 
—— and endless misery. 555 
—— differs from foresight I2 
—— from foreordaining . QI 
—— in man, foreguessing. 31 
Forgiveness of sins , . ¥2BE 
Fourth Commandment, 

and days of creation as ae 


Fourth Gospel, authenticity 335 


—— and Synoptics . « 5-340 
—— and Revelation ~ 345 
——— author, St. John > 632 
Free force, meaning of 4 
Free will, foreknowledge é 31 
—— of man=- *". : att G2 
—— of animals F Pee 9 x 
—— of angels ; a AO) 
—— its introduction Races Fb 
—— makes evil possible . 88 
——— difficulties as to ae oe 
—— in religious belief me 520 
Future life (see Immortality 

and Resurrection) 
GADARA, miracle at . 325, 419 
Galatians and. Acts a? "356 
Galilee, appearance in 376 
Gallio, proconsul 350 
Gamala, siege . : tee 
Generations, meaning 4c 
Genesis, creation in . 1 Bee 
——daysof.. ; vines 
—— refers to Egypt eQtOr 


—— partly written there . 163 
Gentiles, conversion 455, 4 59, 466 


38—2 


596 


PAGE 
Gentiles called dogs . 458 
Geography of Palestine 206 
Geology and Genesis Rois 3. 
Gibbon and Christianity 496 
God, meaning of term Paka. 
—— argument from causa- 
tion : : : 4 
——— from design . PE 
=. Oral argument. A. 70 
—_— three combined 93, 267 
—-— no physical means of 
discovering . See 
—_— a Personal Being cargeky:§ 
—— who loves man. mre 


—— Power 37, 246, 264, 520, 552 
—_— Wisdom 37, 246, 264, 521 
——— Goodness 
Q2, 247, 265, 280, 521 
—— if good, very good . 88 
—_— bearing on miracles . 130 
———andon the Trinity . 265 
—-— emphasized by Chris- 
tianity . 273 
— — three attributes com- 
bined 93,130, 233, 273,577 


—— Justice 230, °202, 553 
= and Merey : .. 555 
——bearingonAtonement 280 
—— Love 265, 282 
—— bearing on Trinity  .— 265 
—__— Greatness. : 3 74 
—_— Fatherhood 526 
—-—- Omnipresence . 39, 246 
—— Providence ; oe ae 
——Unknowable 39, 247, 262 
—— bearing on revelation 109 
—— Unchangeable .. 127, 246 
——— bearing on miracles . 127 
—— and the Incarnation. 269 
—_— Eternal 246 
= Invisible «. : ae EX 
—— Creator of Universe . 9 
—_— its Maintainer . 38 
—-— Author of nature eee 
—— Jewishideaof . 213, 236 
—— man responsible tot 340 
—— faith in 574 


—— (see Immanence) 
—— (see Trinity) 
Goodness, God’s 92, 247, 265 
—— if good, very good 88 


—— man’s : ia 
— — depends on free will. 8 7 
—-— its infinite value wh GD 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE | 
Gospels, the Four 20 55,8320 
—— external testimony 295 
internal evidence 320 
—— evidence of Acts =. "346 


—— not full biographies . 377 


—— alterations in text 300. 
—— apocryphal : . 30% 
—— of St. Peter 310 


—— (see Synoptics, Fourth) 

Governor, title of 

Gradual development (see 
Evolution) 

Grave-clothes at the Tomb 401 


—— their importance 408 
Gravity, force, universal . 9 
—— known by effects ita S| 
—— an assumption . REN 
Great ambition : eh ce 
—— alternative hs, tae 
—— surprise . : : > Ba 
Greek philosophy . 499 
Green grass, mentioned . 345 
Guard at the Tomb . 401 
HAMMURABI’S laws 186 
Happiness, unconscious . 85 
Hard sayings of Christ 330 
Harnack, unity of Acts . 357 


Heathen, their future state 565 


Heaven 290 
Hebrews, Epistle, miracles 429 
—— Christ’s wake 485 
Hengstenberg . 460 
Heredity . 53 
Herod, Agrippa, death of . 349 
—— called king 350 


—— the Great . : ' 325 


Hezekiah’s sickness . 229 
+ not, subject’ of Ps: 29, ee 
High Priests 322 
Historical evidence 386 
Holy Spirit, the 266 


—— Divinity of : 543 
—— a gift from God ; 
Horus myth, and Christ . 535 


Human sacrifices in O.T. 242 
—— and Atonement 279 
Hume on experience - eg 9 
Hurtful organs, in nature . 73 
Huxley on the Creeds 292 
ICONIUM ; : Soe 
Idealism . , ‘ 46 


Identity personal : vite ae 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Idols, none among Jews 
Ignatius 

—— knowing, believing 
<——— asito Trinity 
Illusions, not simultaneous 


Hlyricum : : 
Immanence, God’s, and 
Evolution 


—— and secondary forces . 
—— and miracles F 
—— as well as Transcen- 
dent 
and the Incarnation . 
—— and prayer 
—— and in man 
Immortality man’s 
——- from unique position 
—— unjust treatment 
—— vast capabilities 
—— inherent belief . 
—— counter-arguments 
—— and human nature 


Impossible, meaning of 
Incarnation, doctrine of 
—— its difficulties 
—— its motive. 
—— historical position 
—— not taught by Philo . 
—— and human nature 
—— and other religions 
Indian Mutiny . 
Infants at Bethlehem 
Infinitely little 
Inhabitants, other planets | 
Inherent convictions,man’s 
as to mind 
—— personal identity 
—— free will 
responsibility 
sin. 
—_—— immortality 
———pftayer.. 
Inscriptions at Khorsabad 
—— Tivoli : 
—— Baalbec 

Soli, Cyprus 
a Delphi : 
—— Malta 
—— Thessalonica 
—— Lystra 
—— Ephesus 
as to Belshazzar 
Insignificance of man 


PAGE 
239 
314 
317 
549 
398 
354 


26 
38 
125 


267 
278 
520 
267 

96 

97 
100 
IOI 
103 
104 
528 


in Egyptian religion 167,535 


38 
268 
269 
ry 
276 
308 
527 


PAGE 

Inspiration, meaning of 5a 
Instincts of animals . 21, 64 
Intermediate State 566 
Invertebrates, in Genesis . 1 ou 

Invisibility of God  30e 
Involution and evolution . 28 
Irenzus, and Gospels 301 
Polycarp and miracles 302 
——Papias.. 311 
—— date of St. Mark 312 
—— of Revelation 346 
—— authorship of Acts 362 
—— rests on prophecy 433 
— — silence of Eusebius 312 
Iris, complexity of ee 
Isaac, sacrifice of 236, 243 
Isaiah, mentions Sargon 208 
-——. test ofa prophet i). ame sa 
——' prophecy, of Rapveae 220 
—— of Jerusalem 230 
—— of the Messiah . 447 
—— of His Divinity . 464 
—— implies the Trinity 408 
Israelites, great number 195 
JAcopb’s character SAG 
Jairus’ daughter 424, 426 
Japan, becoming Christian 508 
Jashar, book of 221 
Jehovah, meaning of wor d 246 
—— Elohim 2 A407 
—— adored by millions 2a 
—— and Christ 482 
Jephthah’s daughter 242 
Jeroboam’s rebellion 229 

Jerusalem, first destruc- 
tion foretold 229 
—— and second 224.2333 
later than Gospels 332 
—— later than Acts 364 
—— hint to leave So 
Jewish Prophecies, Egypt. 21 
—— Assyria 219 
—— Babylonia 219 
—— the Jews 223 
—— Jehovah universally 

worshipped Qn 
—— the Messiah Ret. 
Jewish Religion, its origin 159 
—— its partiality 230 
—— its miracles 209 
—-— its prophecies 218 
——~ inflnence in world "e356 
—— and Natural Theology 249 


597 


~ 


598 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE | : PAGE 
Jews, dispersion of . 223, 250 Legislation, Jewish . gale 2 
—— use of term - sfaes TECHS LEVIES ica. f Soy Figere rT 
John, St., his call. . 338 | —— their cities F cass oy | 
author of Gospel . 339 | Life, origin of, in Genesis . 146 
——— (see Baptist) —— science and : aad 
Jordan, beyond ; . 183 | Light before the sun Seat 2 
Joseph in Egypt : . 161 | Line of least resistance 42, 533 
Josephus, witness to Acts. 351 Logos doctrine . ? ¢ AGS 
~ Acts not-indebted to 351 | —— in Revelation . -. 347 
— astoSennacherib . 217 | —— among Greeks . - 499 
as to Uhendas’. . 349 | Lordand God . : po 482 
—— Jewish prophecies . 224 | Lord’s Day , 7 ~# 369 
___— accuracy of Gospels . 321 | ——— Prayer : . 316 
____ date of the taxing . 323 | Lost Gospel . | 360, ros 
—— swine at Gadara ATG kt LOVE, OFGOG se . 265, 252 
—— Christ’s miracles +435 must be free rhe 3, 7- 
Josiah and Deuteronomy . 191 | —— motive of Religion . 531 
Jotapata, siege of . yao Luke, St:,"a doccores . 360 
Journeys in Desert . . 173 | ——wrote Gospel . if 384 
Jubilee, year of ; . 173 | —— wrote Acts , -* 361 
Judges and Pentateuch . 188 perhaps at Emmaus. 334 
Justice, God’s . 236, 282, 553 witnessed miracles . 427 


Justin, witness to Gospels. 304 Luminiferous ether . 9, 262, 286 


~_ Book of Revelation . 346 | Lycaonia, the citiesof . 352 
——— guard at:lomb.. . 400 | Lysanias . ? : Pag ae 
— — Christ’s miracles . 430 | Lystra, inscriptions at Stee 


—— preferred prophecy 
430, 433 | Macicrans of Egypt man ey | 


[wets of Pilate: . . 434 | Magnet and clock . i 5522 
—— doctrine of Trinity . 549 | Mahometanism : <p eae 
——— unlike Christianity . 500 
KinG of the Jews : . 465 | ——and Christ’s miracles 502 
Kings did not use plural . 467 authorises force - 506 
Knowledge, partial, in —— idea of heaven . -- 528 
Natural Theology. 40 | Maladies in Gospels . . 418 
—— and in Christianity . 292 | Malchus : : . 426 
Korah, rebellion of . . 202 | Malta, title ‘chiefman’ . 350 
Koran, Christ’s miracles . 502 | Man, mental attributes . 45 
—— authorises force . 506 | —— moral attributes Joma 
Krishna myth, and Christ . 533 memory . . 48, 104 
free will. : » ese 
LAND animals . : . 152 | ——responsibility . SS 
Laws, of nature ’ ; 22 moral sense ; 59 
-_— in Pentateuch . . I71 | —— conscience ‘ 61, 71 
of Hammurabi . . 186 | —— personal and moral 
Laymen offering sacrifice . I9I being. : 58, 60 
Lazarus, raising of . . 285 | —— bearing on revelation 106 ; 
—— only in one Gospel 377, 426 | —— on Christianity . ay Oe 
—— how explained away. 439 | —— his unique position 56,77 — 
Lecky, on Christ’s teaching 473 | —— due to mind and spirit 78 — 
Legend theory of Resurrec- —— bearing on his import- b 
tion : ; vite aie ance ‘ f ners 
—— disproved by Gospels 392 | —— on immortality Se, 


—— and St. Paul’s Epistles 393 | —— on revelation . . “1004 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE 
Man, each man unique . 75, 156 
———- end of Creation 69, 140 


—— also its first thought. 78 


his probation . are OS 

—— but one probation . -566 
—— apparent insignifi- 

Cances. vee 7.3 

—— real importance aeeey ake 
—— bearing on Incarna- 

tion : Rar a ard 


—— immortality of spirit 96 
—— resurrection of body. 288 
—— creation in Genesis . 152 
—— not created righteous 
99,155 


—— antiquity. 153-077 


—— differs from animals. 63° 


not a reasoning ani- _ 
mal : ports 3 
—— resembles God 
ON 7, LOO; 2 obs are 
— — bearing on anthropo- 


morphism . eur2ag 
—— on the Incarnation . 269 
—— his ignorance 6, 19, 39 
—— bearing on miracles . 124 
—— and on Christianity . 291 


Marcion, Luke’s Gospel : 309 
Mark, St., wrote Gospel . 334 
—— quite able todoso . 334 


—— earliest of Four 326, 365 
—— at Gethsemane. te 344 
—— witness to miracles . 442 
Marsupials : : ToT §2 
Martha. é 2» 3342 


Material universe, meaning 3 


Materialism 47 » 51 
—— and memory 48, 104 
Matter, perhaps eternal 6, 142 


indestructible . awe OO 
Matthew, St., wrote Gospel 334 
—— quite able todoso . 334 


—— value of testimony . 368 
Medical language in Acts . 360 
Memory . ; 48, 104 
—— in heaven . ; eeecls 57. 
Memphis, «ett as to-. -222 
Menephthah . wre OF 
Mercy, God’s . : 555 
_ Merodach, and atonement 535 
Mesmerism nae PAT. 
Messiah, Jewish : fney: Fs 
' Meteorite . ) $383 
Micah, prophecy Of: 4 404 


599 


PAGE 
Microscope ; eat eg 
Mill, on Christ’s teaching a ana We 
Mind of man 20, 45 
—— shows his importance 78 


Miracles, Evidential . wwrsG 
as marvels : Pe te 
—— and experience . - SFIS 
—— as special works -Srhe 
——assigns . 126 
—— not mere wonders 1 17, 118 
—— not after-thoughts . 129 
—— natural means super- 
naturally applied . 123 
—— morally probable . 130 
—— tn Jewish religion . 209 
—— their publicity . i ory 
—— trivial miracles real 8 
diabolical miracles . 213 
—— im Christian religion . 414 
—— their credibility 414 


—— not worked to order. 415 


—— apparent truthfulness 420 
—— not puerile : a PAZT 
~—— their variety. es ee 
—— theirpermanence . 422 

order to keep secret . 425 
—— their publicity . 426 
—— names often given 426 


—— peculiarity of Christ’s 423 


—— conditional on faith . - 424 
—— Officially investigated 427 
—— St. Peter’s appeal 427 
—— Jewish testimony 434 
| —— Acts of Pilate 434 


—— alleged craving for . 437 
—— how explained awa 438 
—— Apostolic, St. Paul’s. 428 
—— in the Acts : 358 
—— witnessed by St. Luke 427 


—— by writer of Hebrews 429 | 
—— in Christ’s Name ~) 483 
—-— helped Christianity . 498 
——-heathen . Oa Y. 
—— Mahomet did none <e5Os 


—— not to be prayed for. 522 


—— later Christian . 442 
Missionaries and Resurrec- 

tion F ' ; dey ti 
Missions . ; ; , ae es 
Monism . ~ e460 
Monotheism, of Jews ~ M245 


—_— at time of Christ 431, 545 
—— in account of Creation 139 
—— Christianity form of . 467 


600 


PAGE 
Moral sense 2 59 
difficulties in O. ‘Test. 2 39 
—__ in Nat. Theology 86, 249 
in N. Testament 474 
Morality, Christian 498 
Moses and Pentateuch 192 
-—— history. of : : 164 
Mountains, flight to. 333 
Muratorian, Canon 303, 362 
Mutiny, Indian . pnd. 
Myrrh : 408 
NABONIDUS 207 
Names, Egyptian Femmes ©, 
—— in'N. Test. miracles: :~ 426 
of eminent converts . 495 
and titles in Acts 349 
Napoleon, on Christianity. 293 
—— his campaigns . 422 
Nathaniel , 338 
Natural means, supernatu- 
rally applied . ; 123 
Natural Selection (see Evo- 
lution) 
Natural Theology, only 
partly known = 40,, 292 
—-— depends. on proba- 
bility . 42 110;570 
—— influence on masses . 108 
—— in Jewish religion 249 
—-— in Egyptian religion. 536 
—— in other religions 539 
in neolithic times 107, 277 
—— moral difficulties. 80, 249 
-_—= and the Bible 233 
—— and unity of God 263 
___leads to Revelation . 45 
Nature, its unity 9, 21 
—— its laws 22 
—— its forces . 5 22 
—— acting rationally 115 
———— it8 ‘uniformity’ . 122 
——— its mysteries 291 
—— its perfection 74 
—— care of individuals 75 
—— a means to an end 98 
—— bearing on miracles . 130 
—— immanence in God 125 
—— and prayer : 518 
—-— analogy, as to angels 410 
—— man’s future life 102 
——— man’s resurrection 288 
—— short probation 554 


——- his annihilation 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Nazareth, dry ground : 
Nebuchadnezzar 207, 
Nebula theory . F 
Necessity, doctrine of 
Neolithic men, future life. 


___ Natural T heology 107, 
Nero, his persecution 
‘not named in Acts 
Nineveh, men of : 
Numbers in O. Test. EQS, 


OBEDIENCE and sacrifice . 
Obelisks, or pillars 

Old Testament, genuine 
alleged mistakes 
—— miracles 

—— prophecies 

—— moral difficulties 
Omer 

Omnipotence 
Omnipresence . 
Omniscience 

Origen and Celsus 
Origin of universe 

—— in Genesis. 

—— of Jewish religion 
—— of Christian religion . 


37) 
38, 
37) 


PAIN (see Evil) 

Paley, watch argument 
Palestine, Government 
Pantheism a, 
Papias as to Gospels 
Papyrus, used for writing . 
Parables, teaching by 

—— some objected to 
Partiality in revelation 
—— to Jews 

Passion, Christ’s, foretold . 
Paul, St., conversion ~— 370, 
—— vision hypothesis 396 
——— his speeches 

—— (see Epistles) 

Pella, Christians flee to 
Pentateuch, importance 
—— claims to be Mosaic . 
language . 

—— Egypticity 

—— laws. 

—— date and author 

—— late-date theory 
Perish, its meaning . 
Persecutions, religious 
—— of Jews : 

—— of Christians 


139, 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE 
Person, not in N.Test. 544 
Personal Being, meaning . 34 
——Godisa . 34 


—— difficulty of Theism | 3s 
—— solved by Christianity 264 


——manisa . : : 58 
animals are not 4.>11p pO 
Peter, St., called Simon 383 
—— connection with Mark 312 
—— appearance to . a tse 
—— appeal to miracles 427, 483 
—— death ; ; . 384 
—— apocryphal Gospel 310 
Petrie, Prof.; as to Exodus 195 
Peyreyrius : 154 
Pharaoh’s dreams 162 
—— vacillation 167 
—— heart hardened 242 
Philip, the Apostle 338 
Philip, one of the Seven 357 
Philippi, pretors, lictors . 351 
——  gaoler at . SACO. 5 Oe 
Philo, days of Genesis 137 
—— Logos doctrine 308 
Pilate, governor d Se Bae 
—— apocryphal Acts of 434 
Finches’ >. : , 208 
Pithom, discoveries at 197 
Plagues, the ten eel, 
—— superhuman  coinci- 
dences : 194 
—— and magicians . mene Di: 
Planets, inhabited (?) a WS Ze: 
—— not by sinners (?) 270 
Pliny, numerous letters 438 
spread of Christianity 494 
—— among all classes 494 
—— Christ’s Divinity 494 
Plural of majesty 467 
Politarchs ; 351 
Polycarp of Smyrna 301 
—— witness to miracles 302 
—— to Gospels Cah 5 
Polytheism 139, 245 
Pretors and lictors e387 
Prayer, subject of 512 
_  ——and experiment 523 
and experience 538 
—— and dogmatism 569 
—— after the event. 519 
Pre-Adamite men 154 
Priests and Levites . 177. 


Priscilla and Aquila . ead 
Probability, guide of life .° 576 


Proconsul and other terms 
Prodigal Son, only in Luke 


Prophecy, credible 


—— in Old Testament 
—— word of Jehovah 


—— its moral use 
—— as to Christ 


—— why not plainer 
—— His own influence 


Prospective organs 
Providence, God’s 


601 


PAGE 
349 
OF 
114 
218 
462 
232 
445 
468 
512 


13,22 


Psalm of the Crucifixion °. 


Publius, chief man 


350, 


QUADRATUS, as to miracles 


Quirinius, his census 
Quotations, Barnabas 


—— Baur 
—— Butler 
—— Clement 


—— Eusebius . 


—— Huxley 
—— Ignatius 
Irenzus 


—— Josephus . 


—— Justin 
— Lecky 
—— Mill . 
—— Napoleon. 
—— Origen 
—— Papias 


—— Polycarp:.. 


—— Quadratus 
—— Ramsay 
—— Renan 


—— Romanes . 


—— Spencer 
—— Strauss 


306, 


308, 


298, 439, 
I0OO, 


—— ' Supernatural. Reli- 


gion ’ 


—— ‘ Teaching of Twelve ’ 
RABBI LEvI BEN GERSHON 


208, 


Rabbis, the Jewish . 
Ramsay, as to census 


—— early Gospels 
—— Lycaonia . 
Rationalism, spread o 
—— and miracles 


297) 


Reason cannot judge of 

Christian doctrines 
—— but can of evidences . 
Recognition, hereafter 
Recurring series of events . 
Red Sea, passage of . 


reo 
456 
426 


429 
323 
316 
297 
510 
316 
430 
292 
315 
302 
435 


602 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


PAGE PAGE 

Religions, heathen . . 247 | Rontgen rays . ‘ PS, 25: 
Remorse . : . 62 | Rudimentary organs a be eee 
Renan, as to miracles rn okies 
—— St. Paul’s Epistles . 327 | SAcRIFICES, heathen cee ay 
—— raising of Lazarus 439° | —— human. ner eAs 
——  Christ’s character . 472 | Salvation, not selfishness ea 
Repentance : 5 BOA Samaritans and Jews Foe 
Representative, terms 1 35, 239 | Samuel and Pentateuch . 188 
———— mecessity Of , . 239 | Sanctuary, the one . 190 
—— Man, Christ the . 283 | Sand-storms and darkness 166 
Responsibility of man . 58 | Sargon, namedin Isaiah . 208 
Resurrection, doctrine of . 285 | Secondary forces : 38 
—— applies to a body . 396 | Seed, may be disciples 450, 459 
——- not resuscitation ieee ts Selfishness, objection as to 532 
——— evidence of ‘Chrisi’s) - +367 Sennacherib 15 NOES 
—— wanted Missionaries. 412 | Sentinel, pain a kind Obie 84 
—— a physical fact . *#2306:-|/Sepher Toldeth Yeshu . 434 
——notreally unique . 286 | Sergius Paulus. ~. 350,426 
—— table of appearances. 372 | Servant, the Lord’s . Aa 
we ree PLOoups» +s . 373 | Shadow on dial : . eae 
+ the' narratives: -: . 370 | Shaving in Egypt. Re stot 
—— their discrepancies . 374 | Shepherd, the Lord’s - 465 
—— their agreements 2* $379: .;» Shur, ‘desert -of 164 
—— omissions . : . 377_| Siege of Jerusalem foretold 
——— signs of early date . 383 by Moses é s ee 
—— the real Sapo: . 409 | ——~-and by Christ . eee ES 
= man's ; . 288 | Signet ring, in Egypt ~ =i Og 
fee NOT WOT TELICE., . 288 | Signs, superhuman . 2) kal 
—— the period of life . 529 | ——supernatural . 116 
—— the sreat surprise . 530 | Silence, argument from 188, 435 
——and human nature . 528 | ——of sun and moon .) A2EO 
—— material images . 550 | Simon, shows early date . 383 
Revelation, meaning of . 95 | Simultaneous visions eae 
—— possible .. i . 96 | Sin, its meaning : 2 ot ae 
——probable . . . 105 | ——not imperfection , pie 
—— progressive iz . 107 | ——JAimnvolves free will . 60 
—— after writing . . 107 | ——reason forit . a ee 7 
—-— must be partial 110, 236 | ——vnecessary for some : 
—— evidence inconclusive II10 virtues . : oss tak 
—— how bestowed . . 469 | —— its universality. <i Bey 7 
—— miraculous ; . 113 | —— its remedy 2G eee 

not Inspiration . . 515 | ——eternal . ; Mf 
—-— Book of, and Gospel. 345 | Sinai : » = 169 
—— and the Acts. . . 364 | Sinlessness of Christ . - ee eed 
— —- Divinity of Christ . 483 foretold by Isaiah . 451 
Right belief, importance of 560 | —-— implied in Ps. 22  . 461 : 
Risen Body difficulties 286, 385 | Slaughter of animals Rarer 
—-— record of eyewitnesses 383 | Slavery in early times >, eee 
Roman, provinces. . 349 | Solar radiance . F a Oe 
—— siege of Jerusalem . 224 | Soli, inscription at . ee 
—— Government and Solon, and Greek laws Ye So 

Chr istians : 363 | Son of God, significance 

Romanes, man’s probation 100 283, 482 


—— accuracy of Genesis , 257 | Sorrow, human : .. §26 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. | 603 


PAGE ; PAGE 
South, Queen of the. - 331 | TABERNACLE : BES 2 do. 
Specialists and the Bible , 296 | Table of Christ’s appear- 
Spectroscopes . : 76 ances, : : ogee 
Spencer, on personality . 36 | Tacitus, Nero’s persecu- 
Spiritual beings . 286, 416 tion ; é ROS 
Strauss, as to miracles. 297 | —— spread of Christianity 494 
—— St. Paul’s Epistles. 327. | —— his contempt for it ~ 436 
Substance, meaning of . 256 | Talmud, as to miracles . 434 
Suetonius . : - 494 | Tatian, his Diatessaron . 309 
Sufferings of animals - 81 | Teaching of Twelve 314, 316 
m—-— Of men _-; d - 84 | ——and the Trinity ARAL Y te. 
—— and future happiness oz | Tel-el-Muskhuta ; Bebe Ur 
of Jews . : - 223 | Telephone, analogy . > ab 20 
= of Christians’. , - 389 | Telescope and eye . SR KO 
Sun and moon, creation , 147 | —— discoveries of , ere 3 
—— not in firmament - 145 | Ten Commandments (see 
——— silence of .. ‘ ee pt Decalogue) 
Superhuman signs, - 114 | Ten Plagues é - 165 
—— men in furnace. - IIQ | ——superhuman  coinci- 
coincidences. SoS gt i dences , : - EOL 
—— passage of Red Sea . 1094 and magicians , aie 
—— destruction of Korah 202 | Tertullian : : taba. (8 t- 
—— —— of Assyrian army 216 Testimony and experience | 19 
——silence of sun . - 210 | —+—its value . : - 386 
—— Elijah’s sacrifice - 215 | Text of Gospels ; - 300 
shadow on dial ihe wee Thebes, prophecy as to . 222 
—— and prayer : - 518 | Theophilus, and Acts Sah 
Supernatural force , ‘ 9 | Thessalonica, politarchs . 351 
—— man partly ; - 55 | Theudas, date of ; = 346 
‘Supernatural Religion,’ Third Day, importance. 369 
as to miracles - 298 | ——and Vision Theory 2 7.936% 
—— Marcion and St. Luke 310 | —— volume of Acts oi 368 
—— St. Paul’s Epistles, 327 | Thomas, St., and Resurrec- 
—— Christ’s character, 473 tion ; : 308 
Surprise, the great. na 5 30 and Christ’s Divinity 482 
Survival of fittest (see Evo- Thousands or families “AT O8 
lution) Three Creeds- . ; 2 hg 
Swine at Gadara . 32, 419 | —— days and third day . 369 
Swoon theory of Resurrec- Three men in furnace Fates b= 
tion ‘ : - 404 | Titlesofvariousrulers  . 349 
its improbabilities . 405 | Tomb, the empty . inert ihe. 
——— what became of Christ 407 | —— visit of disciples oo Sod 
cannot explain facts . 408 | —— guard at . : oa AOL 
the grave-clothes . 408 | Town Clerk of Ephesus, 353 
Sword, a violent death 459, 465 | Trials here, future reward  1ot 
Syene, temple at é - 190 | Trinity, Doctrine of the . 256 
Synoptic Gospels, SE ACY Eo) | ae 1S Cred bite Pai 15 
—— discrepancies ., - 331 | ——and Nat. Theology . 263 
sources , : - 325 | —— peculiarly Christian . 533 
-——— apparently truthful . 329 | —— hinted at in Old Test. 467 
probable date . 332, 365 | —— deducible from N. 4 ae? i 
=-— authors: . ; - 334 | —— implied by Clement . 549 
and Fourth s - 340 | —— by Ignatius : 549 


eum avenity of Christ =." 499 °|) 22 by the Teaching 546 


604 


Trinity, and by Justin 
—— form of Monotheism . 
Triple tradition in Gospels 


UNconscious happiness 
Undesigned coincidences . 
—— examples, Korah 
—— slaughter of animals . 
call of St. John 
destroying Temple 
—— feeding the 5,000 
Acts and Epistles 
swine at Gadara 
—— mocking the Crucified 
—— baptismal formula 
Uniformity of nature 
—— and prayer 

Union, Christ and believers 
Uniqueness of man 

—— of each man 

of the Incarnation 
—— of Christianity . 
Unitarianism 

Unity of nature 
Universalism 

—— man nota machine 


Universe, its origin . ef 


—— its magnitude 
—— bearing on man 
——- an effect 
Unknowable, everything is 
Unrighteous steward 


VEGETATION in Genesis 
Vellum used for writing 
Veracity of witnesses 

——— the only alternative . 
Verbal inspiration 

Vessels of wood 

Vesuvius, eruption of 
‘Victoria Institute,’ pain . 
fishes and birds 

—— Red Sea 

—— Pithom 

—— Belshazzar 

—— Lystra : 

—— Krishna myth . 

—— Horus myth 


ine 


PAGE 


549 


"407 


325 


: aye ite Be 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Vine and branches .! 283 
Virgin Birth, unique 271 
—— and Justin 305 
318 
—— Aristides . : 2) 2430 
Vision theory of Resurrec- 
tion : 394 
—— contradicts language 395 
—— which implies reani- 
mation . a¢0e 
visions not expected. 396 
began too soon . 397 
—— ended too soon . 397 
—— Christ not recognised 397 
—— Apostles doubtful 398 
—— seen simultaneously . 398 
—— cannot explain facts. 399 
—— what became of Body 400 
—— or appearance to Paul 403 
—— real visions - 403 
Volition, source of all force 57 
Vows in Ps. 22. i Abe 
Voyage, St. Paul’s 356, 363 
WALKING on sea, Christ’s. 439 
Warnings of Athanasian 
Greed 97. LPS OT 
‘ Wars of the Lord, : quoted 186 
‘Waste and void’ in Gen. 143 
Watch showing design 13 
Water-wheels, Egyptian 170 
‘ We sections ’ of Acts 357 
‘Westward,’ use of term . 183 
Wheat, seven-eared . 162 
Whirlpool 288 
Wicked men, their use gO 
—— not machines 60 
final state . won #48) 
Wisdom, God’s. 37, 246, a 
Word or Logos . . 308 
—— in Revelation 347 
—— among Greeks . 499 
Writing, early use of 160, 206 
—_— wanted for revelation 107 
ZACHARIAH : 323 
Zeal of early Christians 497 
Zebulon, prophecy as to 464 
Zechariah, prophecies of . 465 


WELLS GARDNER, DARTON A* D CO., LTD., LONDON 


PAGE 


a 
PAP et 


eae La 


oO ' ¥ 
ary 


